The Truth About The Creation 
God's Glory, God's Handiwork, God's Word, The Genesis Account
A Dissertation by Pastor Ed Rice January 2017

11: An Apology for Creation

An apology¹ can be made for creation. Not an asking of pardon for a fault or offense, but a formal justification or defense, more often called an apologetic. Such a formal defense was spearheaded in a Feb 2015 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye held at the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. The question debated was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?” There is much to be learned when it comes to making a formal justification and defense, an apology, if you would, for creation. This effort is focused on exploring the knowledge which might enhance such a defense. It is thus altogether fitting that a critique of this debate be highlighted in this effort. It is in our nature to set back in hind sight and say, “What I should have said was...” It is more so our nature to watch someone else and respond, “What he should have said was...” This sort of “armchair quarterbacking” is found in this analysis. It is not meant as a criticism of Ken Ham personally. We hold him in very high regard. However, there are some things that were not said well in this debate, things that went off track to show a lack in strategy, and critical examination of them is meant to be a help. Soul winners contend with the product of atheistic evolutionists everyday, and need to rehearse a good strategy in breaking up wayside soil.

The Ken Ham Debate and Apologetic Purpose
The Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye, Creation vs. Evolution debate cries out for an analysis of its apologetic purpose. At first glance the purpose might seem obvious. Atheists have promoted evolution as scientifically proven fact and scoff and mock anyone who believes in the Bible's creation account. But there is a wide gate and broad path and atheistic evolutionists are stamping out a third path, a path of what Jesus called wayside soil.² We will analyze the strategy of Ken Ham, the co-founder of Answers in Genesis, in this debate and hopefully refine the purpose of a good apologetic.
The question considered in this debate was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?” All parties agreed to the wording of the debate's central question, but in considering it as an apologetic purpose, it does not capture the larger picture.
The purpose of this apologetic can be clarified so that it might capture the broadness of the dilemma. Ken Ham's five minute opening statement does capture the source of the dilemma. He declares that true science has been hijacked and made out to be something it is not. He also frames several unique colloquialisms to illustrate the hijacking; not the least is the evolutionists use of science to support a “molecules to man” origin, a theory they purport as “scientific fact.”
In the close of the 19^th century the scientific method was formalized and considered the infallible model for determining all truth. The scientific method was a systematic means of taking man's hypothesis through to a worded theory and then on to a scientific law. A most notable example of its use is found in Kepler's development³ of the laws of planetary motion. Keplar made observations, pondered the pattern, formulated hypotheses, developed testable predictions, gathered data and tested his hypothesis, and, finally developed his general theories. After independent corroboration and wide acceptance of scientists within the discipline they became Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
In the midst of the twentieth century there was an inordinate expectation placed upon the scientific method. Kepler's laws of planetary motion showed that the “wandering stars” had no mysticism in their motions, they only followed natural courses. The expectation placed on the new formalized scientific method was that all Supernatural considerations could be dismissed with a perfectly natural explanation.
“Mainstream Scientists” attempt to encapsulated into their scientific method, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, inerrant and infallible. These characteristics, of course, are Biblically credited to the Most-High-God (Hebrew El-Elyon). Lines were drawn. On one side were atheists declaring Nature and natural processes as their creator and god. On the other side were Creationists acknowledging a Most-High-God, who revealed himself and does the super-natural.
Standing in the middle, straddling the line, are a majority of people saying, “Can't we all get along?”, and “Can't both sides be right?” Their solutions which try to include some of each side are so nonsensical that the line has gotten blurred and smeared. The line is so trampled by this mixed multitude that the majority cannot even distinguish the two sides. A good apologetic highlights the line.
These “traditional scientists,” or “mainstream scientists,” which are herein called “science-so-called”⁴ scientists, have a tactic they use for blurring the line. Ken Ham discloses their tactic. In his opening five minutes he exposes, 1) their modification of the meaning of words, 2) their bait and switch tactics, and 3) their insistence that “true science supports the 'molecules to man' origin of the Universe”, and that “no true scientist believes in the Bible's creation account.” These three tactics are employed by the science-so-called community. The tactics employed by Ken Ham to expose their deceptions are worthy of additional analysis to completely understand the apologetic which is advanced in the debate. However, in this initial examination it is expedient to word the core deception and thus expose the underlying purpose of this apologetic.
Aside from the tactics used in this debate, the line which divides the sides is this, “Is there a Supernatural power involved in the Universe we inhabit?” Bill Nye the science guy stands with his “mainstream science” crowd and would respond, “No, everything has a natural explanation with NO Supernatural involvement whatsoever.” Ken Ham the co-founder of Answers in Genesis, stands with his Bible believing crowd and would respond, “Yes, and the Supernatural Creator of the Universe has revealed himself to expose how and why he created us.”
That is the line that divides. That is the line that gets blurred by the mixed multitude tromping around in the valley of indecision. And that is the line which should be exposed before an artful apologetic can be developed. The line produces two distinct world views, but it is not the world views which divides, it is the line. The line produces three ardent, vehemently defended positions, one from mainstream science, called here science-so-called, one from Biblical Creationists, distinguished here by those who believe in the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Holy Scriptures, and a third ardent position held by those who try to compromise a little of both sides and recite the line, “Can't we all just get along?” The later of these ardent positions are busy blurring the lines and muddying the waters. The line is still very real and must be defined if an effective apologetic is to be produced.
The line, again, divides two sides. On the left is the declaration “The cosmos came into existence and continues in existence by nothing more than natural processes which true science may discover.” On the right is the declaration that, “The Universe came into existence by the creative power of the Most-High-God, and it continues in existence by the natural laws he created AND by his Supernatural involvement in the affairs of man.” These two declarations are large enough to capture the whole of the divisions. The apologetic proposed has a purpose to clarify this line and defend the position on the right of that line.
The Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate and Apologetic Strategies
The strategy in a public formal debate is not only documented, it is formally graded. Although this author is not versed on formal debate strategies and rules, it seems obvious that Ken Ham did not stay on track in this debate. One can all learn some things about apologetics from this debate; learn about the deception, the deceivers, and in hindsight declare what should have been said. The observations below show how Ken Ham had trouble keeping the main thing the main thing, and are insightful considerations of a strategy against evolutionists.
Recall that the purpose in this apologetic is to enhance the dividing line. The two declarations above capture the whole dilemma of this great division. The apologetic's purpose is to clarify this line, and defend the position on the right.
What, if anything, would change your mind?
In the 2015 Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate the question was asked, “What, if anything, would change your mind?” Ken Ham gave the classic Christian answer, “Once you meet the Lord, the King of Glory, there is nothing that can change your mind.” This is altogether true for a born again believer, there is no going back. There is no changing allowed or possible from the quickening that took place when one is justified in Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. That quickening gives us (present tense) eternal life and God has promised that it cannot and shall not ever be taken away. That is a marvelous truth; there is no going back or changing of the mind allowed for a true born-again Christian. However, that is the wrong truth to present in a creation vs evolution debate with Bill Nye the science guy.
In a confrontation with an unbeliever, particularly when they are scoffers of any and all spiritual truth, it is important to meet them where they “are at,” to go to the ground where they are standing, and deal with the stumbling blocks that they are currently confronted by. In a formal debate one is given points and “adaboys” for how well they remain on topic throughout the confrontation. But such a formal grading structure is in place because reaching out to the position and the understanding of the opponent is a wise and prudent thing to do.
Talking about meeting Christ, about a life that is changed forever, and about eternal security might draw a hearty “Amen,” and applause from the born again crowd, but it does nothing to forward the debate about creation vs evolution, nor does it have any particular effect on Bill Nye the science guy. Remember the stumbling block where Bill Nye is standing is clear, he rejects the statement, “There is a God who does the Supernatural.” He cannot, and will not surmount that obstacle in his mind. He has entered into this debate because he “knows” there is a natural explanation for everything. One who believes in a Supernatural involvement is not, in Bill Nye's opinion, scientific. He is defiant of Ken Ham's promotion of a Supernatural involvement in creation. Ken's saying he has personally met this Creator will not bode well in this debate. Understanding where an adversary is coming from is essential for a good defense of Christian truth. Never loose site of the purpose.
An answer that would have delivered a one-two punch to Bill Nye and the topic at hand would have been ideal for the question, “What would change your mind?” I am not in the “hot seat” and I often step back, as an arm-chair quarterback does, and say, “What I should have said,.” or in this instance, “What Ken Ham should have said....” But just the same, consider this.
I raise beagles, and we are all familiar with dog shows and the many many dog breeds that they parade across the showroom. Incidentally, Miss P, the beagle, won first place at the 139^th Annual Westminster Dog Show this past February 2015. But if one could keep working with these dog breeds until one of them produced a Clydesdale horse, then I would step back and say, “Whoa, maybe I was wrong about this hypothesis of evolution.” Anything less than that will not persuade me. Darwinians hypothesize that by accident and random chance beagles turn into Clydesdale horses, lizards accidentally turn into bald eagles, and completely by random chance, molecules turn into man! Go to now, get down to those laboratories, practice some real science, count the chromosomes, tweak the DNA, and change a beagle's genes to a Clydesdale horse's genes. Then true scientists will grant the right to change such a wild hypothesis as evolution into a bona-fide theory. One might call it, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” or perhaps “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” one of those titles might fit that theory. In the mean-time, get serious! A theory must be producible and repeatable in a laboratory. God said beagles will reproduce after their kind; Bill Nye, the science guy, says beagles will produce Clydesdale horses. Let's do some experiments and see which is the truth. I need to see some real evidence and some real science before I'd even consider that God got this one wrong.
But because Bill Nye, the science guy, accuses that creationists make no predictions, allow two very formidable predictions with this observation. First, no matter how many dog breeds one brings together, there will never be a horse or hoof of any sort produced from that pool of genes. Second, no matter how obvious and outlandish their unmitigated broach on true science is, no matter how mute their DNA analysis, no matter how silent their cloning laboratories, the “main stream scientists,” that earn and deserve their title “scientist-so-called”, will still insist that dogs accidentally breeding into horses, that lizards accidentally hatching out eagles, and that molecules evolving into humans is still, in their opinion, a valid “theory.” In reality, there is not a shred of laboratory evidence! What they say happened “naturally” in eons of time, they cannot reproduce in the most sophisticated laboratory. It is all an unsubstantiated, inconceivable hypothesis forced on us by main-stream science-so-called. No rational mind could change from a creation account to such a hypothesis without some kind of meaningful evidence, and they have none.
Now, the blunder that Ken Ham made in refuting Bill Nye's hypothesis in this debate is that he failed to consider the basis of Bill's reasoning. Every ounce of the evolutionist's brain rests on an assumption that everything is natural, and there is no Supernatural existence or involvement in the Universe. Ken's argument that he has personally met the Supernatural LORD God and would never change his mind will eventually reduce to a “Have not!”, “Have to!”, “Have not!”, “Have to!”, kind of argument which has no place in a formal debate. So to, in a Christian's defense of truth, such an approach will have little value. In defending against the evolutionist, always keep their major contention foremost in the argument. One wants to break up the wayside soil not pack it in harder. They hypothesize that there is no Supernatural involvement in the Universe, and every observed phenomena must have a natural explanation. When they hypothesize a natural explanation that accounts for the species seen today, they must construct an inconceivable molecules to man evolutionary scheme. Ken Ham had an opportunity to confront this total lack of evidence, but he let Bill Nye, his contender, walk away unscathed. It is essential to keep the main thing the main thing in these situations.
Well what about Noah's Ark?
Another instance where the main thing got set aside, while Bill Nye mocked on and on, dealt with the impossibility of Noah's Ark. Ken Ham missed this profound opportunity on two fronts. First Noah built an Ark, not a ship. The unsuccessful five masted schooner ship, which Bill Nye used to illustrate his mockery, could have been sunk by pointing out that Noah was not a ship builder, he was God's Ark builder. God's Ark had no masts. None. Notta. Zip. But his second blunder should capture our full attention for a moment. The “main thing” that is to be pursued here is this: the Christian believes staunchly in the Supernatural God who involves himself in the affairs of man. Mainstream science, that Bill Nye the science guy is representing, contends that there is NO Supernatural, and that EVERYTHING has a purely natural explanation. In this instance Ken Ham completely departed from the main thing. He tried his best to explain the Ark and the Flood, and then the multitudes of species produced after the flood, with ALL NATURAL explanations. What a shame! What a missed opportunity to point out the main thing that Bill Nye is purposefully missing. Every conversation, with an unbeliever, every dialogue, every contest, must go back to the main thing. There is a God in Heaven, and He miraculously orchestrated the Ark, the Flood, and the re-speciation of this world. Trying to explain any Supernatural event with only natural sciences... well... that is the essence of the unbelievers dilemma isn't it? Ken Ham tried to play on their “natural” turf and detail a natural explanation for building an Ark, fitting in two of every kind, and repopulating the world with a modified and replaced Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species! (Ken Plays Chess On Friday Getting Suspended).
Re-speciation is a miracle. It cannot have a natural explanation. Consider that the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species post-flood classification, or taxonomy, of living things has been our practice since the turn of the 18^th century AD. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708), a French botanist, is considered “the founder of the modern concept of genera, and Carl Linnaeus (1707 – 1778), (also known after his ennoblement as Carl von Linné) a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, is known as the father of modern taxonomy. For example, Canis is a Genus of dogs, in the Family of Caridae. It includes dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. The important thing about a Genus is that they can all interbreed, and thus they can align with the distinction that God gave them in Genesis 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” It is demonstrable that interbreeding a dog, a coyote, and a gray wolf can produce a golden jackal or an Ethiopian wolf. They are all of the same “Kind.” In God's order, and in biology's taxonomy, or ordered system, they are in the same Genus and Family.
Contrast that with a Genus Felis, of the Family Felidae, containing lions, tigers and … cats (Dorothy was also concerned with bears, but that is yet another Kind, ordered into the Genus Ursus in the Family Ursidae; indeed they are all in the Order Carnivora, but it is only the whole Family, Canidae, that are interbreeding to produce black, grisly, cinnamon, brown and polar bears). Now this Genus and Family, the Felis, can interbreed and make all kinds of feline creatures, but woe to the man who breeds a Canidae with a Felidae. They would get... well... nothing. One cannot breed cats and dogs because they are of different Kind. Everybody knows that. The genes and chromosomes and DNA are completely different in Kind. And yet, mainstream science, i.e. science-so-called, wants to completely ignore this truth and pretend, for the sake of their hypothesis, that these various Kind came from common ancestors. And not only that, they did it by natural selection and survival of the fittest! The magnanimity of this deception is staggering. If evolution were a real science, it would be required that their scientists get down to the laboratory and crossbreed cats, dogs and bears, and re-produce a common ancestral, Order Canidae, which connects them. But the only place that is even possible is in a fictional ancestral tree, printed in our children's “science” text books!
Table 11-1 Taxonomies of Dog, Cat, and Bear

Dog	Cat	Bear
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Canidae Subfamily: Caninae Genus: Canis Linnaeus, 1758	Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Subfamily: Felinae Genus: Felis Linnaeus, 1758	Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Ursidae Subfamily: ?? Genus: Ursus Linnaeus, 1758

Further, the evolutionists have brain washed our society into thinking that if cats , dogs, and horses have a common ancestor then so do mammals, birds, lizards and insects! Their hypothesis includes the unbelievable presumption that two rocks rubbed together in a primeval sea and produced some amino acids which, by pure happenstance, flicked off into accidental life forms. These life forms used natural selection and survival of the fittest to produce a Stanford Ph.D.! Shame on Charles Darwin, he was no scientist!
Table 11-2 Taxonomies of Gecko Lizard, Ostrich, and Bald Eagle

Gecko Lizard	Ostrich	Bald Eagle
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Order: Squamata Suborder: Scleroglossa Infraorder: Gekkota Species ?? Cuvier, 1817	Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Struthioniformes Family: Struthionidae Genus: Struthio Species: S. camelus	Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Accipitriformes Family: Accipitridae Genus: Haliaeetus Species: H. leucocephalus Linnaeus, 1758

God established that his creatures reproduced after their own Kind. When he miraculously directed them to get on an Ark (not a ship) he said “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (Gen 6:20). He reiterated this Supernatural miracle in case some might doubt what he did:
In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. (Gen 7:13-16)

Bill Nye the science guy, and his mainstream scientists standing behind him, have insinuated that all creatures great and small have arrived at their present Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family Genus and Species, by a natural process starting with two rocks in a primeval sea and driven by a survival of the fittest. They allow no Supernatural involvement whatsoever, and they provide no repeatable laboratory evidence to support this wild hypothesis. Although the vast majority will recite in unison, how beautiful and auspicious are the Emperor's new clothes,⁵ there will always be a few Bible believing Christians who yell out from the sidelines, “The Emperor has no clothes, the Emperor is stark raving naked.” There is a God in heaven, and he created creatures which reproduce after their own kind.
I said all that to say this, in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye, Ken did not keep the main thing the main thing. Bill Nye is solidly persuaded and most firmly believes that every thing in this Universe arrived here, and continues here, by nothing but perfectly natural and logically understandable processes. He is totally against the inclusion of a single Supernatural event. He purports only Natural Science as his Creator and Sustainer. The main thing in any Christian defense here, is to point out the absurdities in that hypothesis. Always keep a focus. Ken Ham did not.
Ken's attempt to refute Bill Nye's hypothesis by testament, that he personally met the Supernatural Creator is ineffectual, i.e. a “Have not!”, “Have to!” kind of argument. But his attempted use of the natural sciences to explain an Ark, a Flood, and a re-population of God's creation, was absolutely deplorable. He was completely off target and Bill Nye the science guy knew it. If Ken Ham's strategy had kept the main thing the main thing, this debate could have asserted that Creation is not only a “viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era”, but it is the ONLY viable model in any era!
When developing an apologetic, a defense of Christian doctrine, always know the main thing, the grounds of the detractors, and the strategy which will refute them. If one cannot, it might be better to not answer at all. The Bible says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him.” The next verse says “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:4,5).
The untouched “Cambrian Explosion”
Another observation on the evolutionist's wild hypothesis that all Creation has a common ancestor (somewhat and somehow removed from the amino acids of a rock) is their hypothesis of a Cambrian Explosion. It is unfortunate that Ken Ham spent all his time trying to differentiate “historical science” from “evidential science,” and none of his time rubbing a Cambrian Explosion into Bill Nye's face.
Twenty five years ago Stephen Jay Gould exploded a twenty-megaton bomb in the very heart and soul of the Darwinian evolutionists laboratory. Their fossils, theories, and wild hypotheses should have been vaporized and blown to kingdom-come, but there was not a single impact on the beast with seven heads.⁶ If it were possible that mere wisdom and logic of man could destroy the living beast called Evolution, Gould's book, “Wonderful Life”⁷ would have seen “one of his heads as it were wounded to death” (cf Rev 13). The Cambrian explosion so eloquently documented by one of their own in that 1989 book focused all of its dismantling effect on the atheistic evolutionists upward-and-onward, survival of the fittest, billions of years of progressive climbing up the evolutionary ladder. Yet it did not interrupt a single rung of their ladder. Is it possible that a debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Science Guy could have ripped a few rungs out of their ladder?
If the February 2015 debate relied on the Spirit of the Living God, the eternal truth of His inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word and the power of our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, that Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate could have easily wounded a head of the beast as unto death. But, alas, it relied on logic and the modernist's hyper-critical, and grossly compromised Good News to Modern Man type bible. A Christian without a double edged Sword, able to divide between the thoughts and intents of the heart, to divide between the bone and marrow, to divide between the soul and spirit, is ill equip to make an impact on the souls of men, and the beast scoffs at their logical efforts. If mere logic and rational thinking would prevail, Gould's Cambrian explosion would have surely prevailed.
Only a modest evaluation of the Cambrian explosion debacle is herein undertaken. As a systems engineer I only want to step back and look at the atheistic evolutionist's dilemma in the broadest of terms. Such a broad knowledge of their plight is helpful and encouraging to a Bible believer, and it has already been stated that a through knowledge of all the detail might enhance a logical argument, but a purely logical argument is not an effective weapon against this enemy.
The Cambrian explosion refers to the sudden appearance of a multitude of new animal body forms in the middle of the Cambrian era, which atheistic evolutionists suppose was half a billion years ago. In the Darwinian evolutionist's mind, which has no book of Genesis, no Creator, and no account of his creation, this occurred with a “monophyletic” origin – from a single common ancestor in which the basic arthropod structure slowly developed by some tree-type structure. Darwin labeled this tree diagram a “tree-of-life” from something he read previously from the book of Genesis. Gould's book takes an ax to Darwin's tree. Monophyletic origins are the mainstay of Darwinian survival of the fittest, onward and upward evolution. The orthodox view of evolution has “a cone of evolutionary diversity (which) must expand through time”⁸ Stephen Jay Gould's book, “Wonderful Life,” thoroughly debunked this myth of progressive improvements in a tree-of-life. He depicts a “polyphyletic” development which is random.
There was no 'Arthropod Eve,' no single ancestor from which all modern arthropods are descended. The chelicerate (spiders and scorpions), crustaceans (crabs and prawns), uniramians (insects and myriapods) and the extinct trilobites had each independently evolved the characteristic arthropod structure. On such a model it would not be surprising that some other equally independent, arthropod types might have appeared in the Cambrian and then become extinct.⁹

This polyphyletic interpretation making the Cambrian explosion allows Gould to revisit the whole evolutionary theory and toss in a completely random paradigm. That random paradigm throws an insurmountable wrench into orthodox Darwinian evolution. Orthodox evolution must have a direction, a purpose, and onward-and-upward. The intended outcome is a higher ordered being, even one capable of rational thought, abstract reasoning and spiritual being,... us. The direction and purpose, however, cannot go so far as admitting “intelligent design.” Thus, Peter Bowler's book review, just sited, takes a precarious middle of the road position. He refers to “The Crucible of Creation” by Simon Conway Morris to refute Gould's rebuke which endangered them of the sacred monophyletic paradigm, but he abhors the word “Creation” in Morris' argument. The word “Creation” not only boasts an intelligent design, it might even call for a designer, and some might call him their Creator!
One does not need to go into any further detail about the Cambrian explosion to see the straight that the atheistic Darwinian evolutionists is caught in. If Stephen Jay Gould has the last say, the “evolution” is so random that the onward-and-upward “living-tree” model is defunct and no longer progressive; in fact it is in danger of extinction. If Conway Morris has the last say there is a Creator involved, and atheistic Darwinian evolution cannot tolerate that. The plight is priceless.
Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture developed very well that the neo-Darwinian does not have a leg to stand on here. “The sources of new form and structure must proceed the action of natural selection – that selection must act on what already exists..... yet population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life.”¹⁰
Meyers continues, “As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so, a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish.”¹¹
The Cambrian explosion pitches the atheistic Darwinian evolutionist into an insurmountable quandary. His onward-and-upward, progressive, survival of the fittest paradigm does not fit into the fossil record, and it cannot come up with the “morphological novelty.” The alternative, some kind of “intelligent design” leaves the door open to their worst nightmare, an “Intelligent Designer.” It is unfortunate that so few Christians see or know about the uncomfortable, unexplained, straight the neo-Darwinian is locked up in. Ken Ham should have bludgeoned Bill Nye with the Cambrian Explosion. Bill Nye was ignorant of it, and so are most Christians still struggling for a good apologetic.
A good offense is better than any kind of defense.
What's more, there was an incorrigible amount of debate time used up introducing creationists who made scientific contributions of late. This was also completely off topic. Bible believers will win nothing by appealing to what the majority are saying or doing. The true believer's lot is that of a minority in this world. Indeed “there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov 16:25). And again, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” (Matt 7:13). It is only the Roman Religion which thought that (and still thinks that) the Catholic Church would usher in a new world where “the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid… They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:6). No, true believers will always be the minorities in this debate and in the end, one dare not use any majority arguments. Further, it was defensive posturing even before an offense was mounted. It was ineffective. In an opening statement, when one gets to go first, an offensive jab is far more effective than a defensive posture.
An ideal opening offensive should have been aimed at the evolutionist's time clock. They insist that it takes 168,000 years for light to travel 168,000 light years. Their whole world view hangs on this fallacy. It does not take much development to throw a wrench into that thinking and fracture that foundation. The theories of relativity have established that time and distance are interrelated, and somehow “relative” to one's current coordinate system. That is why so many sci-fi ideas concern themselves with time travel, time warps, worm holes, etc. which sci-fi geeks assert as present in the outer reaches of space. There is some basis of truth behind most sci-fi imaginations and evolutionists completely ignore this truth. Einstein established that light traveling through firmament outside of our immediate coordinate system “is not relative” to our tiny little coordinate system. This all unfolds inside Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity, theories of which evolutionists purposefully remain balefully ignorant.
The only reason that mainstream scientists believe and preach that the world is thirteen billion years old, is because the edges of the Universe which they can presently “see” is likely, in their estimation, thirteen billion light years away. They contradict their own logic when they assert that the Universe is also unbounded and infinite, but that needs to be another investigation. For now, for this present argument, be it known that the ONLY basis for their three and a half billion year old universe is that they saw a glimmer of light from a star that, for their best guess, is three and a half billion light years away! Notice that as they got greater telescopes they raised all their estimates, and they have done that for all my 50 years of listening to them. They will surely soon get to thirty-two, or three-hundred and two billion! They used to believe and preach that the Universe was an astronomical two million years old, but then they kept building bigger telescopes and revising their “known facts” and their outlandish hypothesis. They always preach their hypothesis as “irrefutable fact,” and get more and more offended at Christians who will not line up with what they are preaching.
The stark reality is this, diligent Bible believers see that God has revealed a Universe that he created only 6,019 years ago, in 4004 BC (If one is not offended by the genius of James Ussher (1581-1656), who determined when all the planets aligned, and supposed God's first day after creation was Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC; please do not be quick to sit in the seat with his scorners just because of his zeal). If the observed supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud occurred 168,000 year ago, because it took 168,000 years for the light to get here, then God has deceived us in his revelation. The
remnant of Bible believers who are going to hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word are going to herein reject the preaching of mainstream science. One can contend that this ever changing Godless hypothesizing is still gross error, and thus expect that a more thorough comprehension of Albert Einstein's theories, and even the law of entropy itself will carry the day. It will not. God, not logic, can change the heart and mind. Let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4). Let the remnant be busy breaking up wayside soil so the seed can find some good soil.
Further, when the atheistic evolutionists drill a hole through a large tree and find it older than God's Earth, diligent Bible believers will contend that they are mistaken; when they dig down through layers of ice and hypothesize that it is older than God's Universe, sincere Bible believers will sympathize with their ignorance, but will not reject God's revealed Word. When they hypothesize about continents drifting at a forever constant rate, about the moon slipping away from the Earth while collecting NO cosmic dust, or about planets solidifying at an exponentially slower rate than is NATURAL, Christians have a “going in” position, and it is, “God does not lie.” Evolutionists have a “going in” position as well, it is that they have no creator and there is no Supernatural God involved in the affairs of this Universe. One is right, one is wrong. Truth, i.e. our Lord Jesus Christ, is on our side. Don't back down. Don't look to their false god of Natural Science. When Bible believers know the LORD God who created the universe, they cannot compromise with an evolutionary atheist.
A careful strategy against evolutionists- the Main Thing.
Bible believing Christians hold to God's Word which declares that just over 6,000 years ago the LORD God created the heaven and the earth. Evolutionists hold to (and forever modify) Charles Darwin's hypothesis that molecules turned into man in thirteen billion years of random happenstance. For the Bible believing Christian the big bang and lizards evolving into eagles is not a viable model for the creation of the Universe. Bill Nye the science guy, has declared his intention to wipe the belief in Biblical creation out of existence. In utube video he states “When you have a portion of the population that does not believe in (the general understanding of science) it holds everyone else back. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science,... their world view is crazy, it is untenable and inconsistent... and I say to the grownups if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them, we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers, we need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems… in another couple centuries that world view will just not exist, there is no evidence for it.” His “world view” goes on to suppose teaching children the Bible or creation is akin to child abuse! Dr. Kent Hovind reminds us “We are in a war here, and you need to get in the battle.”
A word about an apologetics strategy which comes from this analysis is in order. We found the purpose in this apologetic crafted into two declarations. On the left is the declaration “The cosmos came into existence and continues in existence by nothing more than natural processes which true science may discover.” On the right is the declaration that, “The Universe came into existence by the creative power of the Most-High-God, and it continues in existence by the natural laws which he created AND by his Supernatural involvement in the affairs of man.” Granted there is a mixed multitude (cf Exodus 12:38 and Nehemiah13:3) running around in between these two lines, but a diligent Bible believer should never cross certain lines. Stand with the clear winner in this purpose, “that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph 6) Recall his promise:
“Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish. Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought. For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee” (Isa 41:10-13).

Now, a strategy which would pursue this purpose might be to resign oneself to being the underdog. Just be brazenly obvious that the majority of “scientists”, the majority of “religions” and even the majority of “Christendom” is not going to hold emphatically to dictates of God's inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word. But let Bill Nye the science guy, or any of his cohorts, know that he just crossed a Bible believer who is emphatic. Aggressively pursuing the notion that God's creation model is the ONLY viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era is far better than some defensive posture, or some pretense that there are a great number of us holding and defending such a position. Remember the victory which Gideon saw; remember the loneliness which Elijah felt; remember how much they hated God's Only Begotten Son, and then keep the main thing the main thing.
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.(Isaiah 45:5-12)

Considering the Audience.
Consider the audience for Ken Ham's apologetic. The debate was held on home turf, in the Creation Science Museum auditorium. Of course a formal debate cannot be structured to give Christians instruction on how to approach a skeptical “scientist” type, but it does give a “watch this” performance for Christians. The idea that a majority is siding with “science-so-called,” and rejecting the Creation account of God can be intimidating. Seeing Ken Ham face-off against Goliath is encouraging. Seeing the world's most educated trying to defend the Emperor's fine wardrobe was certainly enlightening, and often entertaining. Be assured that few of the world's most educated are aware of their involvement in “The Emperor's New clothes” scenario. Again the greatest value of the debate was what it does for the Christian soldier who is about his Father's business, preaching the gospel to every creature. Others found it interesting. Some found it moving. Soldiers of the cross found some new tactics. The target audience, for an apologetic, should be the Christian soldier on the front lines.

1 Apologetics is a related term of apologise. As a noun apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position, or of religious or occult doctrines. From http://wikidiff.com/apologise/apologetics (accessed 06/28/16).

2 In Jesus' parable of the sower consider the plight of “wayside soil”. “And when he sowed, some of the seed fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up” (Matt 13:4). Of this illustration Jesus explained, “When one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the wayside” (Matt 13:19). In defeating an ugly rumor and getting ahead of some untoward information apologetics will not dismiss all misunderstanding. There will always be wayside soil. Apologetics' purpose is to make it the “wayside” less traveled.

3 Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630) was a German mathematician and astronomer.

4 This title is derived from 1Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

5 Hans Christian Anderson, The Emperor’s new Clothes [By Danish author and poet, Hans Christian Andersen (AD 1805-1875) First published in 1837 currently Public Domain and repeated in entirety in the appendix of this author's dissertation].

6The Bible student knows the seven headed beast alludes to the coming great red dragon from Rev 12:3 (cf 13:1, 17:3,7). It symbolizes the completed rise of Satan in this world, i.e. even, a Bible number for completeness, as the seven days of creation, and the red dragon, a Bible depiction of Satan. Note also the phrase “Kingdom-come” has reference to Jesus' prayer “Thy kingdom-come,” alluding to the final victory over this world, and even Darwin's use of “Tree-of-life” wherein he misrepresents where life comes from vs the tree in the Garden of Eden kept away from man because of their rebellion and fall.

7 Stephen Jay Gould, “Wonderful Life, The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”, W. W. Norton & Company, 1989

8 Peter Bowler, Cambrian Conflict: Crucible an Assault on Gould's Burgess Shale Interpretation, American Scientist Book Review September-October 1998, http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/cambrian-conflict-crucible-an-assault-on-goulds-burgess-shale-interpretation (accessed 06/13/2016).

9 Ibid., 2.

10 Stephen C. Meyer, 2004, Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington August 4, 2004, http://www.discovery.org/a/2177, (accessed 06/30/2016), 2.

11 Ibid. 3.

To Continue in this series click the link below:
12: Defiance of Science - Flat-Earth, Geocentric, and Conspiracy Conspirators. . . 234 www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthecreation/12flat_earth_defied.html
. . . Defying The Flat-Earthers. . . 236
. . . Defying The Geocentrics. . . 239
. . . Defying The Conspiracy Conspirators. . . 244
. . . Why defy the defiance of science?. . . 246

God's Glory, God's Handiwork, God's Word, The Genesis Account
Series Complete Table of Contents