You Should Definitely Listen to Ken Ham and Philip Johnson – Carefully!

You should never listen to anyone uncritically, without looking into questions such as their relevant expertise and qualifications, their biases and assumptions, and looking to see whether they are treating the subject they are talking about fairly or are engaging in spin in an attempt to dupe you.

But you should indeed listen to them. And listen carefully.

Take Ken Ham, for instance. Thanks to Jim Kidder, I became aware that Ham responded to the recent incident involving a church acting in a reprehensible discriminatory fashion towards an interracial couple. Ham responded not only by emphasizing the Bible’s teaching that all humans are descended from the same common ancestors and thus a single race (although that didn’t stop Christians in the past from using the Bible to discriminate, of course – think the infamous view many Christians had regarding “mark of Cain”), but also pointing to the Human Genome Project, which provides tangible evidence that human beings are a single species.

When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2000, scientists announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome and “the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.”

The report also stated: “But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome—the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body—the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by ‘race’ have little or no biological meaning.”

Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project, is an Evangelical Christian. He is persuaded that the scientific evidence points clearly to evolution having occurred. Ken Ham has had denigration and scorn to offer towards Collins in the past. Notice that Ham is happy to appeal to the evidence of the human genome project when it suits him, but is happy to denigrate a fellow Christian who is actually a scientist when it suits him, even though the two are connected.

Why do Christians choose to listen to someone who is clearly being duplicitous, engaging in picking and choosing as Ken Ham clearly is, rather than someone who brings not only personal faith in Jesus Christ but also relevant scientific expertise to the matter? Why do they trust Ken Ham when he treats the results of the Human Genome Project as evidence one day and as something to be ignored another?

One could say the same thing about Philip Johnson. Jeffrey Shallit suggests showing this video to all biology students:

As long as they grasp the basics of biology first, they will see that they are being lied to in the video, and I suspect that most of them would make the appropriate choice about how to view Johnson and his movement. One could even annotate the video, pointing out lie after lie.

And one could do the same in the case of many other of the popular false teachers of our time.

Ignoring deceivers and charlatans of this sort only allows them to dupe the poorly informed without objection. The answer is to encourage people to listen to them – carefully – and to help them understand just how these folks are attempting to deceive them, not only about science, but about the Bible.


"How does your verbiage help stem the destruction of the world by religion?"

How Children are Led Astray into ..."
"Jesus mythicists are misled (note the spelling) and there is veniality in abundance, but should ..."

How Children are Led Astray into ..."
"What about religion is moral or decent or even basically honest? Proponents of religion are ..."

How Children are Led Astray into ..."
"It sounds like the latter is not a serious question. Can you really think of ..."

How Children are Led Astray into ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • rmwilliamsjr

    K.Ham responded on his facebook page
    “James McGrath (Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis) is perplexed because he refuses to understand the difference between belief (historical science) and empiricism (operational science). “…” he would have to acknowledge his a priori assumption of accepting evolution and rejecting God’s clear account of origins in Scripture.”

    • Gary

      I’ll follow scripture… Luke 11:52 …never follow the advice of a lawyer in how to get to heaven. Especially a right wing lawyer from UC Berkeley. Isn’t that an oxymoron, or did I miss the 60’s entirely? Scientists should only listen to patent lawyers, anyway, and only if they want to get rich.

  • James F. McGrath

    Thanks for pointing that out. Here’s what Ham wrote, in its entirety:

    “James McGrath (Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis) is perplexed because he refuses to understand the difference between belief (historical science) and empiricism (operational science). Here is a good example, where he obviously doesn’t understand why I quote Francis Collins in regard to his excellent operational science concerning the human genome project, but reject Francis Collin’s beliefs about evolution (his historical science). Until such professors as James McGrath understand the difference between operational and historical science, they will never understand the creation/evolution issue as they should. But then again, James McGrath is so committed to his evolutionary belief system, he doesn’t want to understand this matter as he should–if so, he would have to acknowledge his a priori assumption of accepting evolution and rejecting God’s clear account of origins in Scripture.”

    As I have said on countless occasions, I was previously committed to Ken Ham’s viewpoint, and the evidence from both science and the Bible persuaded me to change my mind. So once again, Ham is misrepresenting the matter.

    He also pretends that historical science is just “belief” which is likewise a misrepresentation.

    He also claims that I am rejecting “God’s clear account of origins in Scripture” and yet that very account seems to most born again Christians to clearly be at odds with Ham’s own viewpoint. So if God has been clear, then that is just one further piece of evidence that Ham is wrong, since most Christians both historically and today do not understand the account in Scripture as he does.

    • Jeremiah

      Interesting how people who are slightly educated like to jump on
      the internet and act like experts in all fields. 


      The truth is if you believe that creation of the world and
      universe took more than 6 literal days you have
      a major problem not associated with science. The main
      problem we have today is not evolution but lack of reading comprehension. If so
      called scholars could actually read and comprehend books of history which
      happens to include the Bible, we would not have this silly notion of evolution
      running wild around the world.  The more
      I study and research the Bible and history, I find more and more overwhelming evidence that completely disassembles and disintegrates any anti-Biblical
      thought processes.


      For example we have historical evidence for man living at the same
      time as Dinosaurs, why are all evolutionists willingly ignoring overwhelming evidence
      found in history? For example we have noted historians and explores that talk
      about dinosaurs in writing IE Marco Polo, and Herodotus just to name a few. Why
      are so many so called elite minds so utterly lacking in knowledge of what is
      written in books? I believe there is a clear Biblical answer to this question.


      Rom 1:19  Because that which may be known of God is
      manifest in them; for God hath shewed it
      unto them.

      Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the
      creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
      made, even his eternal power and
      Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

      Rom 1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they
      glorified him not as God, neither were
      thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was

      Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became

      Rom 1:23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible
      God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
      beasts, and creeping things.

      Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
      through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between

      Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
      worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
      ever. Amen.

      Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile
      affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
      against nature:

      Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the
      natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
      working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
      their error which was meet.

      Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God
      in their knowledge, God gave them over
      to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


      This seems to make it pretty clear,



      • rmwilliamsjr

        to avoid filling our screens could you reference like Rom 1:19-27 and quote just a phrase or two? we all have our own Bibles and memories to refer to. we seldom disagree on the English text, the issue is what do the words mean, and pasting them again here doesn’t help with interpretation differences.

        • Jeremiah

          Feel free to Reply how you would like and I will do the same.


      • rmwilliamsjr

        If so called scholars could actually read and comprehend books of history which happens to include the Bible, we would not have this silly notion of evolution running wild around the world.  The moreI study and research the Bible and history, I find more and more overwhelming evidence that completely disassembles and disintegrates any anti-Biblical thought processes. 

        perhaps you would share some of the references you’ve read during your research of the Bible and history so that we could add them to our TBR piles. i would love to be disabused of my silly notions and i think reading new good stuff the right way to do this. so please share!

        • Jeremiah

          Thanks for asking

          Bible KJV,
          and before you come back saying that your newer versions of the Bible are
          better and more acurate I recommend you do a full historical analysis on what
          texts were used in the translation of whatever Bible you are quoting from. If
          you are not using a Bible that comes from the textus Receptus your Bible is
          most likely flawed from bad orginal text.

          40:15-24 “Behemoth” description fits that of a dinosaur

          Job 41:2-26  leviathan most likly a dinosaur.
          Deu 32:33 Dragons
          Job 30:29 Dragons
          Psm 44:19 Dragons
          Psm 74:13 Dragons
          Psm 91:13 Dragon
          Psm 148:7 Dragons
          Isa 13:22 Dragons
          Isa 27:1 Dragon
          Isa 34:13 Dragons
          Isa 43:20 Dragons
          Isa 51:9 Dragon
          Jer 9:11 Dragons
          Jer 10:22 Dragons
          Jer 14:6 Dragons
          Jer 49:33 Dragons
          Jer 51:34 Dragon
          Jer 51:37 Dragons
          Eze 29:3 Dragon
          Mic 1:8 Dragons
          Mal 1:3 Dragons

          The word Dinosaur was not in use during Biblical times they used the word
          dragon. Many of the above mentioned verses may be talking about dinosaurs.


          Marco Polo

          The following is an excerpt from Marco Polo’s book in which he describes a dinosaur:

          Don’t like to read? Watch the movie: Forbidden History to learn more.

          “Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a
          westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name
          of the chief city….Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about
          30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore
          part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of
          a tiger, with eyes larger than a forepenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and
          very glaring.”

          The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large
          and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor
          any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are met with of a
          smaller size, being eight, six, or 5 paces long; and the following method is
          used for taking them. In the day-time, by reason of great heat, they lurk in
          caverns, from whence, at night, they issue to seek their food, and whatever
          beast they meet with and can lay hold of, whether tiger, wolf, or any other,
          they devour;


          “After which they drag themselves towards some lake, spring
          of water, or river, in order to drink. By their motion in this way along the
          shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep impression, as if a heavy beam
          had been drawn along the sands. Those whose employment is to hunt them observe
          the track by which they are most frequently accustomed to go, and fix into the
          ground several pieces of wood, armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover
          with sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible.

          When therefore the animals make their way towards the places
          they usually haunt, they are wounded by these instruments, and speedily killed.
          The crows, as soon as they perceive them to be dead, set up to scream; and this
          serves as a signal to the hunters, who advance the spot, and proceed to
          separate the skin from the flesh, taking care immediately to secure the gall,
          which is most highly esteemed in medicine.

          In cases of the bite of a mad dog, a penny weight of it,
          dissolved in wine, is administered. It is also useful in accelerating
          parturition, when the labor pains of women have come on. A small quantity of it
          being applied to carbuncles, pustules, or other eruptions on the body, they are
          presently dispersed; and it is efficacious in many other complaints.

          The flesh also of the animal is sold at a dear rate, being
          thought to have a higher flavor than other kinds of meat, and by all persons it
          is esteemed a delicacy.” (The Travels of Marco Polo, © 1948,Book 2,
          Chapter XL, pg. 185-186)



          Herodotus was a Greek historian who lived in the 5th century BC
          from (484 b.c.-425 b.c.) Many scholars refer to him as “the Father of
          History” in Western culture. He was the first historian known to collect
          his materials systematically, test their accuracy and arrange them in a vivid

          In his work, The History of Herodotus, Book 2, Herodotus records an
          interesting report of flying winged serpents. It is interesting to note that
          there are no living winged serpents in our day. Things go extinct. These
          accounts cannot be overlooked and do much to show that our presuppositions
          about flying reptiles and dinosaurs are flawed. The account is quoted from his
          work, The History of Herodotus:

          “There is a region moreover in Arabia, situated nearly over
          against the city of Buto, to which place I came to inquire about the winged
          serpents: and when I came thither I saw bones of serpents and spines in
          quantity so great that it is impossible to make report of the number, and there
          were heaps of spines, some heaps large and others less large and others smaller
          still than these, and these heaps were many in number.”

          “The region in which the spines are scattered upon the
          ground is of the nature of an entrance from a narrow mountain pass to a great
          plain, which plain adjoins the plain of Egypt;

          “and the story goes that at the beginning of spring winged
          serpents from Arabia fly towards Egypt, and the birds called ibises meet
          them at the entrance of this country and do not suffer the serpents to go by
          but kill them. On account of this deed it is (say the Arabians) that the ibis
          has come to be greatly honored by the Egyptians, and the Egyptians also agree
          that it is for this reason that they honor these birds.”

          The quotation goes on to describe the ibis and then continues on with the
          description of the winged serpents as follows:

          “As for the serpent its form is like that of the
          watersnake; and it has wings not feathered but most nearly resembling the
          wings of the bat. Let so much suffice as has been said now concerning
          sacred animals.”

          Pliny the Elder wrote About Dragons

          Gaius Plinius Secundus, better known as Pliny the Elder, was an author,
          naturalist, and natural philosopher as well as a naval and army commander of
          the early Roman Empire. He lived from 23 A.D to 79 A.D. He spent most of his
          time studying, writing or investigating natural and geographic phenomena in the
          field. He wrote an encyclopedic work, Naturalis Historia, or Natural History.

          Natural History, consists of 37 books covering mathematics,
          geography, anthropology, zoology, botany, agriculture, pharmacology,
          mineralogy, and much more.

          In Book Eight of Natural History, we find some fairly detailed information
          about “dragons.” Book Eight also contains information about
          Crocodiles, Serpents, and other reptiles, ruling out these as candidates for
          the dragon. From the reading, It could be that the “dragons”
          mentioned here meant the largest of all snakes, the size of which is now
          extinct or are very rare today. The following are quotes from Book Eight:
          Chapters XI, XII, & XIII, XVII. (source document: Book Eight of Natural History.)

          Book Eight: Chap. XI: “Elephants breed in that part of
          Affricke which lyeth beyond the deserts….India bringeth fouth the biggest: as
          also the dragons that are continually at variance with them, and
          evermore fighting, and those of such greatnesse, that they can easily claspe
          and wind round about the Elephants, and withall tye them fast with a knot. In
          this conflict they die, both the one and the other:”

          “the Elephant hee falls downe dead as conquered, and with
          his heavie weight crusheth and squeaseth the dragon that his wound and wreathed
          about him.”

          Chapter XII: “…the dragons ware hereof, entangle and
          snarle his feet and legges first with their taile: the Elephants on the other
          side, undoe those knots wiht their trunke as with a hand….the principall
          thing the dragons make at is the eye…Now these dragons are so big withall,
          that they be able to receive all the Elephants bloud. Thus they are sucked
          drie, untill they fall down dead…”

          Chapter XIII: “In Ethyopia there be as great dragons bred,
          as in India, namely twentie cubits long.(approx. 30 feet)

          Also noted in chapter XIIII is the following interesting quote:

          “Megasthenes writeth, that there be serpents among the
          Indians to that bignesse, that they are able to swallow stags or buls all
          whole….Attilius Regulaus, generall under the Romanes, during the warres
          against the Carthaginians, assailed a Serpent neere the river Bagrada, which
          caried in length 120 foot…”

          Book Eight of Natural History. Check out
          the source material yourself. Go to the link, cut and paste Book Eight into a
          Word document, save it, and then use the find function to search the word

          This should give you a good start if you need more info let me






          • rmwilliamsjr

            trying to summarizing your references: i should stop reading “The Bible, Rocks and Time” a book written by Christians trying to help integrate the faith with modern geological science. and spend my study time reading Herodotus and the Travels of Marco Polo, in order to understand that dinosaurs lived in recent historical time. even if i found these writings persuasive that dinosaurs lived say-5000ya or 4kya or even 2500ya(dating for chinese dragon bones), i’m not sure how that is evidence that the universe is 6kya and that i should discard everything i think i know about astronomy, physics, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, history, biology etc..

  • Michelle_Massaro

    I don’t get the problem here at all. Something repeatable in a lab is one thing, and all the inferences that follow it are another. The lab results can be agreed upon by both viewpoints without them having to agree on what they infer those results mean.

  • James F. McGrath

    Jeremiah, Romans 1 does seem clear. And yet young-earth creationists claim the opposite to Paul, and say that God’s creation testifies falsely about its age, making God the Creator out to be a deceiver, whereas Paul says that God’s attributes – including presumably God’s truthfulness – are clearly known.

    Young-earth creationists only accept the parts of the Bible that suit them.

    As for your other claim, I will assume that you are not deriving your conclusion on that from misunderstanding the genre of the Flintstones, even though YECs generally have trouble discerning genres. Are you by any chance referring to the Paluxy River tracks? If so, you should check what even many young-earth creationists have to say about them, to say nothing of more reliable sources. 

    • Jeremiah Greenwell

      Testifies falsly about its age? I suppose Adam being a fully formed man at his creation testifies falsly about his age as well? God made a fully mature world just as he made every living thing fully formed; the only bias being displayed here is your bias not to accept Genesis as a literal, historical account.

      – A different Jeremiah.

      • rmwilliamsjr

        I suppose Adam being a fully formed man at his creation testifies falsly about his age as well? God made a fully mature world just as he made every living thing fully formed; 

        this is the omphalmos hypothesis, it simply adds a line to science-we are investigating the apparent age of the earth as God created it looking mature and complete at a creation event 6kya. it doesn’t change science at all, the creation event would be completely transparent, science would be all about the appearance of the universe.

        the question then becomes: why did God create the universe with an “apparent to the observer history” that looks as if life evolved? the answer from the YECist is that creation is an easter egg, designed by God to deceive science into thinking that the universe is much older than it really is, and that life evolved by a consistent mechanism to deceive people. this is Al Mohler’s proposal, to deceive everyone looking at the book of nature. so that YECists alone would be able to see the true nature of the universe by reading Gen 1-3 as modern science and therefore detect that creation event as a fascade, a false front, with apparent age and historical development.

        this appears to make god into the coyote trickster, deceiving people with appearances. it doesn’t do anything to science but causes serious theological problems with the nature of God and why he would create a basic conflict between the two books: of works and of words.

        • cdbren

          Richard, I think the real problem is with man’s assumptions of past conditions. It is what AIG calls historical science. It can’t be known for sure or tested or repeated.

          The Earth looks just as it should look. God described in Genesis that He made the Earth in just one day and it was ready to grow plant life and support species. He didn’t wait millions of years for it to form, cool down or whatever no more than He would have waited for Adam to grow from a child to an adult.

          The same goes for the universe. God created the universe, the Earth, humans, plants and animals all in their mature states, ready to go. That is what Genesis clearly states.

          If he is a trickster, why then did he explain the creation the way he did? Only a fool would think he created a conflict when He clearly spells it all out in writing that He did not.

          • rmwilliamsjr


             It is what AIG calls historical science. It can’t be known for sure or tested or repeated.  

            there are historical methods and there are experimental methods in varying proportions in all the sciences, AiG’s division into operational and historical sciences is a false distinction accepted by no one actually doing science.

            the big problem with AiG pushing this distinction with their “were you there?” school campaign is that the entire criticism can justly be aimed not at ET but at Biblical studies. everything we know about the Bible, about Jesus, about the early Church is accessible to us only using historical methods. in the hands of any half aware opponent this whole “you can’t know the past for sure because it isn’t repeatable” is going to be turned right around to how anyone knows the things of faith. the Resurrection is the height of a not repeatable historical event, the more AiG campaigns for their historical vs experimental false epistemology the more they undermine their own credibility for any claims of the Christian faith which unlike others is extremely tied to historical events.

            i really don’t know why they made this distinction being as it can be directed at the epistemology of an historical faith even better, with more damage generated than at a supposedly historical science like ET which has lots of experimental methods. i think it’s a grossly naive philosophic attack without any redeeming value that will have any thoughtful YEC applying the same arguments to the basis of his faith.

    • Jeremiah

      Unfortunately you have totally missed it, God’s creation testifies a young age, while scholars have twisted science to try and remove God from the equation. The fact that you pose as a Bible believer on the internet while not believing the Bible is outstanding. Read my post below for a list of Dinosaurs in Written history by men that were alive with them. Try not to be sucked into the deception of the atheist movement.


      Read History !

  • James F. McGrath

    Jeremiah, I did accept the Genesis account as completely and thoroughly historically and scientifically factual. My assumption was precisely that, and nothing to the contrary. It was the evidence from the Bible and the evidence from God’s creation that changed my mind. And if you are open to God teaching you new things, you might be surprised what you will learn, too!

    • Jeremiah

      Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

      Only one way to read this my friend,


  • James F. McGrath

    Jeremiah, the same science, the same methods, the same research which Ken Ham quoted as demonstrating that all humans are related, does more than that. It indicates our relatedness to other living things as well. Either Ken Ham misled you about the nature of the research, or he appealed to research that he himself discounts. Either way he is being dishonest and you ought to look carefully at what he is claiming, how he benefits from the gullibility of others, and why those Christians who actually work in these scientific fields disagree with him. Don’t let him manipulate and take advantage of your faith and willingness to trust those who claim to speak the truth of God, but may turn out to have been false.

  • James F. McGrath

    Yes, symbolically, as depicting God as engaging in a work week as humans did in ancient Israel. Unless you are denying that God could create instantaneously?

    • rmwilliamsjr

      thinking about the 7 day creation week. 
      i’ve never made any progress in tracing the length of the 7 day week earlier than sumerians. it’s curious to me that neither the inkas nor aztecs had a 7 day week(you would expect something so conservative to be remembered from the flood or tower of babel), the week being the unit of time less than a lunar month that does not have a astronomical basis. it has to be invented, like the is also curious that the sabbath is never mentioned from gen 1 to the giving of the law in deu & exodus. if it was a fundamental unit of time, you’d expect God to at least mention it as a way to frame the discussion of time keeping.

      the best guess i have is that Moses is reading his current practices back into the distant past to define the importance of the Sabbath and to support creation as an analog to man’s working. we know they adopted the much early sumerian week, we know it is not a universal human cultural artifact, we know calendars are extremely conservative historically. it becomes a best theory that the sumerians invented the 7 day week from how their religious month was divided up. but i’d be curious pushing my ignorance back a bit in this field, i find it interesting.

  • Memly03

    Ken Hamm believes the Bible.

  • cdbren

    Do evolutionists actually claim “Mutations and natural selection have the power to build complex organs”.


  • James F. McGrath

    Memly03, every false teacher who has ever deceived Christians claimed to be offering Biblical teaching and managed to persuade some people that he or she was in fact being faithful to the Bible. The question is whether you have consulted conservative Christian Bible scholars to see whether they confirm or contradict Ken Ham’s claims. If not, then at the very least you have not taken steps to ensure that you are not being deceived. I encourage you to take those steps, for your own good.

  • cdbren

    Great video! I think everyone, not just biology students, should see this.

    It is a lot of what I have been trying to bring forth on these posts. That Christians/creationists are NOT apposed to science or natural selection but to false assumptions about nature.

  • James F. McGrath

    As long as everyone who sees it also has pointed out to them the lies in it, then I concur. Click through the link in the post, which I will provide again below, for some key examples:

    • cdbren

      James, it isn’t an assault on science at all. It’s an explanation of what is going on in science and why evolution theory (that all life has a common ancestor and changed from simple to what we have today) is a kind of historical science with guesswork and what if’s.

      Your link tries very hard to explain things differently but is hardly convincing. Nothing there shows that we have seen new complex information change in the genome to radically change the body plan of the embryo to produce new complex organs or features.

      Your link throws around the word evolution just like most on these posts and uses it generally to try to make it’s points, which frankly fall flat. Except in the video link Philip explains clearly that there is a difference. Yet another play on words. I am sure biology is quite comfortable with the kind of evolution both Christians and non-Christians readily accept as true.

      Evolutionary change is one thing. To extrapolate that and say this could create new complex features and create a whole new species with features never seen before, given enough time is a wild hypothesis.

      Just like saying that computers can be programmed to learn and that is proof that given enough time they could become sentient. It’s a great concept for sci-fi episodes but has yet to be realized. (Desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities.)

      • rmwilliamsjr

         Yet another play on words. I am sure biology is quite comfortable with the kind of evolution both Christians and non-Christians readily accept as true. 

        this is a particularly interesting verbal sleight of hand trick. most Christians have no problem with the real full true scientific theory of evolution, there however does exist a small minority of young earth Christians who do have issue with it. a portion of that small group consider themselves the only True Christians™ because they have not compromised with the world on the issues of recent 7 day creation, they have however exchanged the truth of Scripture concerning a flat geocentric worldview dominated by demons for a spherical heliocentric germ theory worldview. compromise is basically in the eye of the beholder, the exact same arguments are directed at YECists by flat earthers and geocentricists to their right as YECists direct at old earth Christians, you have only to do a global search and replace text to go from one website to the next.

        flat earth->geocentrics->YECists->OEC->evolution

  • Darren Pardee

    BELIEVER: I believe the Earth was created by giant Rock Ogres not too long ago. Since it’s historical science, and not observational, my theory is just as valid as yours. More so, in fact, because I have a Holy Book the Rock Ogres wrote for mankind before leaving the Earth in their spaceship.

    SCIENTIST: In order for me to take that theory seriously, you would have to have some sort of evidence for Rock Ogres.

    BELIEVER: The Holy Book they wrote mentions them. They call themselves “giants,” though.  They’re mentioned in other religious texts too.  For example, the ancient Hebrews called them “Philistines.”

    SCIENTIST: That’s not scientific evidence.  That’s interesting historical evidence, that someone at some point wrote down, but we need real evidence.  Scientific evidence might include something like a fossil record for these rock trolls–

    BELIEVER: Rock Ogres.

    SCIENTIST: –Rock Ogres, then. Maybe even some fossilized tracks.  More importantly an actual specimen, or living descendant of the original Rock Ogres would be helpful so we could study its morphology.

    BELIEVER: They aren’t around anymore. Like I said, they went up in their spaceship.  Besides, they’re eternal, so they didn’t leave fossils behind. You can’t prove they didn’t exist, because all historical science is just conjectures and what-ifs.

    SCIENTIST: Did they leave any kind of imprint on the world they created?  A signature perhaps?

    BELIEVER: Look at how complex everything is! You think all this stuff came from nothing?  For R.O.’s sake, open your eyes!

    SCIENTIST: The research that we’ve done over many centuries has shown that all life shares common heritage, that is, it evolved–

    BELIEVER: Oh please, now you’re telling me that humans came from nothing.

    SCIENTIST: I didn’t say we came from nothing, I said we evolved from–

    BELIEVER: Right, but you follow that line of reasoning, and you have to admit that all life came from nothing.  What did the first cell come from?  And how did it become so complex?  I find it MUCH easier to believe Rock Ogres created this complexity than that it all just happened by random chance.

    SCIENTIST: That’s fine if you want to believe that, but in order to make it a valid scientific theory, you have to show some evidence–

    BELIEVER: What evidence do YOU have? It all happened in the past, so you can’t prove anything.  It’s not evidence if it can’t be tested in a lab.

    SCIENTIST: Well, there’s no way to test if the ancient Roman civilization ever existed by testing it in a lab, but we have plenty of evidence that it did.

    BELIEVER: Right, I agree with that kind of evidence.

    SCIENTIST: Then why don’t you agree with the scientific evidence for evolution?

    BELIEVER: Because you’re interpreting the evidence from the standpoint that there are no such things as Rock Ogres.

    • James F. McGrath

      Darren, Can I quote this?

      • Darren Pardee

        Sure, no prob!

        • James F. McGrath

          Thanks – I shared it in a separate blog post: 

    • cdbren

      Another person confused about operational science and historical science.

      Apparently evolution from single cell to man can now be tested in a lab. Who would have thought? Even Dawkin’s has explained that we can’t observe that kind of evolution.

      Has something changed in the last few days that I am unaware of?

  • Darren Pardee

    cdbren: “Apparently evolution from single cell to man can now be tested in a lab. Who would have thought?”
    You’re right, I AM confused. Who ever made this argument?

    • cdbren

      The narrative between the scientist and believer.

      It seems to be proposing that evolution theory of molecules to man has some sort of solid evidence. If it doesn’t then it can’t be called a theory…..according to the narrative…

      It is proposing, in it’s underlying assumption, that evolution theory uses the scientific method. ie. tested in a lab.

      “In modern science the term “theory”, or “scientific theory” is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.”

      The Oxford English Dictionary
      says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has
      characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in
      systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the
      formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

      • Darren Pardee

        I understand your line of reasoning, and I think the dialogue satirizes that position nicely (but I’m biased toward the author).
        Who (besides you, and BELIEVER in the piece) believes that in order to be a theory it has to be tested in a lab? Your Oxford English definition does not mention laboratory anywhere, yet you redefine the scientific method in its entirety with “i.e. tested in a lab.”  Radiometric dating, for example, fits the Oxford definition nicely, since it is “measurement,” and it can be done in the field or in a lab.  Such measurement is evidence supporting evolutionary theory since we can measure the ages of the rocks that fossils are found in. 

        But why is an actual physical laboratory even necessary?  Are you okay with the Heliocentric Theory of the Sun? When was it tested in a lab? Would you like to amend it to the Heliocentric Hypothesis, since the Sun and Earth won’t quite fit in our current lab facilities?  What about Theory of Relativity?  It’s difficult to get black holes in labs too, they tend to be too destructive to humanity.

        It’s worth pointing out that some hands-on experiments that empirically verify evolutionary theory actually have been performed in labs.  See, for example, Dr. Richard Lenski’s E. coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment at Michigan State University. It’s a fascinating experiment that observed E. coli evolving the ability to metabolize citrate.  100% pure and unadulterated lab-work.  Nothing historical about it.

        • cdbren

          re: “Radiometric dating, for example, fits the Oxford definition nicely,
          since it is “measurement,” and it can be done in the field or in a lab. 
          Such measurement is evidence supporting evolutionary theory since we
          can measure the ages of the rocks that fossils are found in. ”

          Measurements have to have a starting point and an end point. Scientists can’t look at the start point or test it. So they have to look at the point were we are now and calculate backwards. Assuming rates were constant and had no outside contaminants. That would be hard to do considering we can’t even explain how everything got here in the first place.

          Basically we CAN’T measure the ages of rocks at all. Other clear evidence points to intelligent design not only to the universe but to the Earth and life as well. If that is even a slight possibility then the creation event would have meant things were created in full working order. Therefore it would be impossible to date anything back to their beginning with a measurement today.

          For instance if an intelligent design created Adam and he were alive today and we could test him, (not knowing if he was created or not) we would arrive at an incorrect date. Mainly because we would be going back to his supposed infancy.

          If Earth had no infancy but was created fully functioning, then the measurements are not accurate.

          • Darren Pardee

            “Just as in a criminal trial, I would welcome both evolution theory
            (molecules to man), ID theory and creation theory all on the same level.
            Where they should be.”

            And my theory of Rock Ogres should be on that same level too, then?  If not, why not?  What about other religions’ creation stories?  Should we teach those in the classroom along with creationism and evolution?  If not, why not?

            Your understanding of radiometric dating seems to be a bit muddled.  You can certainly measure an element’s starting points and endpoints.  If you came upon an hourglass that had been turned over but hadn’t quite run out yet, you could count the grains of sand that had emptied to the bottom, count the grains still at the top, and calculate the rate at which x amount of grains flow through to the bottom over y amount of time.  Using some simple math, you can then calculate with an extraordinary degree of precision how long it had been since someone had turned over that hourglass.  That’s a simplistic illustration of how radiometric dating works, only substitute hourglass with rock, and the top sand with element A, bottom sand with element B, the latter element being the product of decay of the former, and the rate of decay a constant that can be calculated through direct observation and measurement, just as the rate in the flow of an hourglass can be calculated. 

            Now, you may argue, we don’t know that the decay rate is constant.  But we do know that, because we have never seen the rate fluctuate.  Maybe it was quicker at some point in the past, just not now?  For that you would need some sort of evidence that the rate of decay in any given element HAS fluctuated significantly, and there’s no evidence that it’s happened.  It’s like the Scientist in the illustration asking for evidence of the Rock Ogres.  If you can’t provide the evidence for your hypothesis, you can’t start with the assumption that the Rock Ogre (or a large fluctuation of the rate of decay in elements) exists.  You need to observe the evidence first, THEN come up with the hypothesis that explains the phenomena.  If you found evidence that the rates of decay were slowing (say, the next year you perform the dating on the same rock and lo and behold, it had gotten significantly slower), then you’d have something to work with from a scientific standpoint.  That hasn’t happened, and it’s not from a lack of looking.

            Now, you argue, God created the metaphorical hourglass already half-emptied (or half-filled, if you’re an optimist).  This would be like somebody secretly filling two halves of an hourglass, putting them together and placing it on the table top to make it LOOK like it had been a much longer time since it had been turned over. But why would anyone do such a thing?  Why, to fool you of course!  What other explanation could there be?  They knew you were going to stumble upon the hourglass and go to all the trouble to calculate the rate, only to be left standing there with egg all over your face when they inform you they had rigged the whole thing.  If God specifically knew that mankind was going to be curious about science and the universe, why did he go to specific lengths to fool all of us (except for those willing to reject human intellect)?  Why not create the Earth “in its infancy,” as you put it so that, as Romans 1 suggests, it would be evident that God had his signature on it the whole time?  Why heartlessly send people to hell by covering up something that Paul himself insists should be quite clear?  Truthfulness is ascribed as a manifest quality of God, but according to the, if you’ll pardon the pun, “half-baked” theory of a young earth, truthfulness is not manifest at all.  

            But we’re retreading ground.  Mark Twain once said his powers of satire were hopelessly ineffective on someone who is already satirizing themselves.  I fear my little dialogue lacks some punch now.

          • cdbren

            I think I see the problem. Most will not accept God or his word and want to impose their own views of how or why he created the way he did.

            It’s not that God has fooled anyone, because he clearly states how he created. It’s that people are fooling themselves.

            Something is seriously wrong with the dating methods as labs have sent recently formed and cooled rocks from recent volcanic eruptions and got back dates of millions of years old. The same rock layers were tested, right beside each other and got drastically different ages.

            1. No one can know the starting conditions
            2. Ground water can add or subtract parent and daughter atoms (contamination)
            3. Decay rates are assumed to have been constant because they are constant today.

          • rmwilliamsjr

            if Adam and the earth were created with apparent age then science is investigating that apparent age then in your system. it doesn’t change the science at all. the creation event would be a completely transparent event to us looking backwards. 

            the problem is Adam, would he have false memories of growing up? where did he learn language? did God just poof his adult brain structure with all of it’s adult connections? those are memories. just as you propose the trees in the garden having tree rings that they didn’t grow but were designed that way by God. these memories of Adam are equivalent to these tree rings, a history of a process, what do we call these memories today-false? don’t you have any inkling of the theological issues you are creating with the proposal of a fully mature created universe? light in transit from distant stars etc? and science doesn’t care the least little bit, it just goes on looking at this apparent age, but it makes god into a coyote trickster giving adam a false set of memories of a life he never had.

  • James F. McGrath

    I wonder if Cdbren is a lawyer. His strategy seems to be one someone would take to try to undermine the confidence of a jury. 

    If he’s not, and he believes that juries legitimately convict people even though they cannot reproduce the crime in a lab, then he is a hypocrite.

    • cdbren

      James, I could have probably been a lawyer. I have entertained  that idea before.

      You are aware that there are two lawyers in a trial? Both with opposing strategies and assumptions about the same evidence? And that often a person is wrongly convicted?

      I am not being a hypocrite at all. I am merely showing there is an alternate theory to the evidence. Like the fact that common design could show common decent or it could show a common designer.

      Evolutionists reject a common designer for a variety of reasons I would guess but mainly they say it is not a natural process. I would say, however that God is as natural as you or me or as natural as the fact that it rains.

      Just as in a criminal trial, I would welcome both evolution theory (molecules to man), ID theory and creation theory all on the same level. Where they should be.


  • James F. McGrath

    Are you aware that if someone lied about evidence the way you and your witnesses have, they would be found in contempt of court? You are trying to get mainstream science wrongly “convicted” and yet have the audacity to insinuate that the reverse is true? Have you no morals whatsoever? Does honesty really mean so little to you?

    • cdbren

      I am doing nothing of the sort. Are you reading what I am posting?

      I have no problems with mainstream science.

      • James F. McGrath

        Yes I am, and what you just wrote is another lie – or if not, at least further evidence that you don’t know enough about science to know when you are at odds with it.

  • aar9n

    hahaha ok ok this is good:

    “Bible KJV, 
    and before you come back saying that your newer versions of the Bible are
    better and more acurate I recommend you do a full historical analysis on what
    texts were used in the translation of whatever Bible you are quoting from. If
    you are not using a Bible that comes from the textus Receptus your Bible is
    most likely flawed from bad orginal text.”

    Yes! KJV onlyists! I thought that they were legendary!
    Full historical analysis=

    Ha ha ha oh the depths people will sink to bury their head in the sand.

    There are unicorns in the KJV bible too! Jeremiah please read Numbers 23:22. 

    My theory of unicorn farts grows!

    • cdbren

      Only if you consider a wild bull a unicorn…..

  • aar9n

    ahem. Read that verse in the KJV. It clearly says unicorn. The KJV is the only inspired version of the bible. The Oxford dictionary clearly defines unicorn as: a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Just as the modern Hebrew usage of raqiya is the same as the ancient usage; so the modern usage of unicorn is precisely identical with the ancient usage of the word in the Only Inspired Holy of Holy KJV Bible.

  • James F. McGrath

    We have already seen that you refuse to accept the Bible’s teachings about the earth’s fixity and the solidness of the skies. The issue now is not your clear rejection of the plain teaching of Scripture, but your refusal to accept input from science in the domain of biology, even though you clearly accept it in other areas. You have yet to address the evils of secular meteorology, which suggest that impersonal forces could explain the rain falling on the just and the unjust, with no mention of God.

    When Genesis 1 says that God said that the Earth should bring forth living things, do you think that was a one-off occurrence or something that the Earth was to continue to do? Do you believe that science can study those processes? Does the Earth, even if acting at God’s command, constitute an “intelligent designer” in your worldview?

    • cdbren

      It was a one of occurrence. Our bodies have been proven to be made of mainly water and carbon.

      He also instructed all creatures he made to multiply and fill the Earth.

      The Earth an intelligent designer? No, there is nothing in the Bible or science that points to this. Since you asked that, it seems you do believe that. I think you are trying to merge the bible to evolution theory. I seriously do see your point but you can’t take that one verse and then ignore the rest.

      I think that natural selection is a created (programmed) ability. I think mutations are a result of sin.

  • aar9n

    Radiometric dating inacurate debunked

    Recently cooled volcanic rock dating very old debunked here.

    and here

    As we can see in both those articles, Henry Morris and Austin used blatantly dishonest arguments to support their case.

    cdbren, I have to ask, have you gone to college? Have you taken studies in critical thinking, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc? Because I honestly have to wonder if you are just some high school student. Because spewing pseudoscientific garbage online is exactly what I did as a high schooler. I remember vividly spending an entire week arguing with scientists on a blog on National Geographic.

    We’ve already demonstrated how you are dishonest to the text of the bible and refuse to listen to modern scholarship on the matter. AiG is a fools organization and their technical journals are scams, on the same level as the moon landing deniers and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

    I think I see the problem. Most will not accept God or his new revelation in the book of mormon and want to impose their own views of how or why he appeared to the Native Americans the way he did. 

    It’s not that God has fooled anyone, because he clearly states what happened in the Book of Mormon. It’s that people are fooling themselves.

    • cdbren

      aaron, you can’t be serious with comparing the entire 66 books of the bible by 44 different authors to the book of Mormon written by one man.


  • aar9n

    “I think natural selection is created (programmed) ability.”

    It is clear that you have no clue what you are talking about. Nor do you understand the mechanisms of evolution which include natural selection, mutation genetic drift, recombination, and gene flow.

  • aar9n

    The book of Mormon was not written by one man, it was written by God through the prophets of the Native American people. God didn’t leave his people without a prophet though, so in the 1800’s God revealed the writings to the prophet Joseph Smith, who faithfully translated them into the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
    All science that says that the Native Americans can’t be the people in the Book of Mormon is historical science and therefore just assumptions. Also, since most of that work is done by non-mormons, their work is highly bias and therefore unreliable.

    My point is that all your arguments can be equally applied to the Book of Mormon as well.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      My point is that all your arguments can be equally applied to the Book of Mormon as well. 

      and he has thrown all the tools out the window to study and debunk them.

      since according to AiG historical sciences aren’t really sciences you can’t take issue with anything in the BOM and try to disprove it because that would be not-repeatable and not-experimental, like all the ways AiG and YECists discredit and dismiss the sciences that investigate the past.
      in trying to rid yourself of anything over 6kya you have made the past inaccessible to rational investigation and study. i’m glad no one actually listens to AiG and it’s YECists minions. but go merrilyon their way doing everyday what AiG says is impossible-talk about the past rationally and scientifically. 

      • cdbren

        No tools are thrown out. The book of Mormon when studied using the historical science methodology does not hold up.

        AIG has NEVER said that historical science is not a science.

        Your lack of understanding is unfortunate. Historical science and Operational science use slightly different methodologies.

        Operational science is like observable science. Study of electricity, understanding DNA, diseases, weather patterns, etc.

        Historical science is making guesses about past events or conditions which we have no way of knowing about. Like star formation, beginning of the universe, how life began, what conditions were present in the past. Sure we can use science to get close to a guess but that is all it is. An interpretation of the evidence.

        No one is “ridding themselves of anything over 6kya”. The past is only accessible to investigation and study from what we have at present. A lot of the conclusions are based on presuppositions.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          Historical science is making guesses about past events or conditions which we have no way of knowing about.  

          if we have “no way of knowing about” the past, then you have no way to counter any Mormon arguments about their claims concerning their BOM. You can not point out the spaulding manuscript because you have denied the analogous right of dendrochronology to authoritatively speak to you concerning the age of the earth. you and AiG thought they were undercutting the epistemology of science when it speaks about the past but in fact you propose making all historical claims mere guesses as you say. your proposal is that we can not make true claims about past events because no one was there and because we can not perform experiments about past things. this is not just nonsense but as is being pointed out dangerous nonsense because it leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of nonsense historical claims ie BOM.

        • Darren Pardee

          “Operational science is like observable science. Study of electricity, understanding DNA, diseases, weather patterns, etc. Historical science is making guesses about past events or conditions which we have no way of knowing about.”

          The speed of light is observable, not historical. But since YEC cosmology posits that God created the universe with observable starlight already in transit to Earth, “historical science” methodology is therefore being used to describe “operational” science. Check and mate.

          • cdbren

            YEC does not posit that.

          • Darren Pardee

            Ah, you don’t subscribe to the Omphalos hypothesis. How, then, did starlight billions of light years away reach us? This is observable science.  Measurable. Do you use “operational” methodology to overcome the problem of distant galaxies, or “historical”?

          • cdbren

            One hypothesis is a white hole, which incidentally is one of the ideas of the big bang. Of course with the Earth in the center of it instead of somewhere outside it at a later time.

          • Darren Pardee

            So here’s my problem. We have a speed of light constant.  We have mathematics.  We have observations of stars and galaxies.  The very simple conclusion that scientists draw is that the time it takes for light to reach us from any object can be calculated, and so they do calculate it.  And they do just fine with it.  The calculations agree no matter what yardstick they’re using (this is the same for all the various types of radiometric dating possibilities -all those various rates of decay give you the same output not matter which one you’re using).  YOU, on the other hand, have to introduce a separate hypothesis (like a white hole conjecture, or a light-in-transit, or whatever, anything) to demonstrate those calculations cannot be trusted.  Why do you have to do this?  Because your aim is that a young earth cannot be proven wrong, at any cost.  In other words, scientists make “operational” observations and calculations, and you use “historical” methodology to render them suspect.  That’s my point.  When scientists calculate the time it takes for light to reach us from any given distant object, they’re not performing “historical” science, but you’re pretending they are with your demand for a theory that must never be falsified.  That is not scientific behavior, that’s schoolyard behavior.
            I’m interested in your white hole hypothesis, though. It may give me material for my next satirical bit.

          • cdbren

            I was giving someone the answer that some YEC’s give as an explanation.

            I am not using it personally.


          • rmwilliamsjr

            But since YEC cosmology posits that God created the universe with observable starlight already in transit to Earth, 

            2. YEC does not posit that.

            obviously some YEC do, evidence AiG’s own words:
            Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us. 

            Advocates of a young universe have had to seek creative solutions to this distant starlight problem. For example, it has been suggested that the light was created in transit (for example, DeYoung 2010), that the speed of light may have been much greater in the past (Norman and Setterfield 1987), that Einstein’s general relativity with appropriate boundary conditions (Humphreys 1994, 1998, 2007, 2008) or with appropriate extensions (Hartnett 2007) can accommodate a young Universe, and that the problem itself assumes an arbitrary choice of convention for synchronizing clocks (Lisle 2010; Newton 2001). 

            just because, at this time, because of the problems it has, AIG does not tell people to believe in “light created in transit” ie the century and a half old omphalos hypothesis doesn’t mean it isn’t a popular YECist talking point, perhaps even the most common explanation for light years away objects in that community.

  • aar9n

    Explain to me why the book of mormon is not historically true. Where you there? Then it is just an assumption. Why do you challenge God’s Word on the matter?

    • cdbren

      Distant past and recent past. Learn the difference.

      • James F. McGrath


        Consistency and inconsistency. Learn the difference.

      • rmwilliamsjr

        Distant past and recent past. Learn the difference. 

        i really would like to know the difference. and when recent turns into distant, ie the boundary, is it written history?, creation at 6kya?, furthest C14 dating? bottom of greenlands ice cores?
        exactly when does recent past turn into distant past? 

        i’d love to learn the difference. inquiring minds.

  • aar9n

    “Like star formation, beginning of the universe, how life began, what conditions were present in the past.”I already gave you a link showing that we are observing star formation. Of course, God could be deceiving us into thinking that we were seeing star formation, since what we are actually observing millions of years ago apparently didn’t happen. And I already pointed out that if we were in a gravity well we would know it because we can measure time dilution from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, orbital rates of binary stars, supernova extinction rates, and light frequencies. There is a reason Humphreys hasn’t posted that nonsense outside of his safe haven at ICR; he would be laughed all the way to the moon and back by cosmologists. 
    The Big Bang theory explains redshift, expansion, and background radiation. If God had magically created the world, he could have easily created the world without background radiation matching the levels we would predict in a Big Bang event. Not to mention the ridiculous enormous pile of evidence that can be seen here
    “What conditions were present in the past.” Are you saying we are to assume that the laws of physics do not function in the past like they do now?

  • aar9n

    Is d=rt observable or historical?
    I already went over the white hole thing; there is not a shred of evidence of that type of time dilution and we have the means to calculate it and there is no way that the universe has been expanding that fast. Again, that’s why Humprey hasn’t published that idea in scientific journals; he would be laughed at all the way to the moon and back. AiG has no honest answer to the starlight problem, just like they have no honest answer to where the flood waters came from. They just propose outlandish nonsense that they try to make sound legit to someone unfamiliar with science.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      is anyone aware of how AiG thinking has evolved over the years? what drove them away from creation with apparent age? 10 years ago it was all about light being created “in transit”, now it’s on the outs there. i wonder why they abandoned it.

      • aar9n

        I followed AiG through 2007, and I remember first hearing about the white hole idea and it was warned to not use that as that was just speculation. The main idea was that all we have is facts, and we have to interpret yada yada yada. They never really had an answer to the flood or starlight, and cautioned against using ICRs canopy idea. 

    • cdbren

      Is that the same as scientists having no real answer to how life began, or how the universe started, or how information got programmed into our DNA, or where the transitional fossils all got to, or what killed off almost all plant life and dinosaurs at the KT boundary?