With apologies to Kierkegaard, there are two ways to be deceived. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. I prefer always to assume the Bible is right, while atheists always assume the scientists are right. Both positions are based on faith. Evolutionists have done a good job convincing people the theory of evolution has scientific merit; however, it is a wrong assumption and not a winning argument.

Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat—that isn’t there.

The Bible says that God is responsible for everything we see and don’t see, but evolutionists tell us He is not responsible for creation because He does not exist. If that’s true, how did this incredible universe originate?

Some scientists are willing to admit that they honestly don’t know. Scientist L. John concluded, “…the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into being.”

There are four theories of the universe’s origins: (1) It created itself, but then that is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics (that says no new energy and matter are being created), so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down, and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not understood by most evolutionists! (4) God did it!

Each person has a choice, and frankly, the ancient Greeks’ mental meanderings make almost as much sense as modern-day evolutionists!

Evolution could not exist without guesses based on inference and extrapolation, but they hold to the first position that the universe created itself. Many refuse to use those words since they make one look stupid, if not silly, and for sure not scientific. Some scientists have plainly declared that nothing created everything! Thinking people with common sense realize that absurdity; knowing nothing cannot do or create anything.

Such teaching is desperation, and they call it the Big Bang Theory (BBT), but it really wasn’t a bang, nor was it big! It also doesn’t rise to the level of a theory but only a hypothesis, guess, or assumption.  Of course, the really Big Bang is God spoke, and Bang, it happened!

Space has proved in recent years to be dark, deep, and disturbing to scientists as they observe detailed space photos that scream, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

The Hubble space telescope, launched on April 24, 1990, caused concern making some scientists “jump ship.” That new information from the Hubble pegged the age of the universe at 8 to 12 billion years while the “dense groupings of stars in a galaxy…are thought to be 16 billion years old.” That would make the universe a few billion years younger than some of its stars! Well, we know that isn’t true, don’t we? That’s like you being older than your parents!

The incredible new photos from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are causing heartburn and loss of sleep for many big bangers in recent weeks. The photos from the JWST have generated the opposite of what the BBT should have produced. The new photos show galaxies that are too small, too old, too smooth, and less chaotic for their accepted (and assumed) age of 13.8 billion years.

Astronomer Alison Patrick said, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Since the stars being discovered are thought to be older than the Big Bang, maybe the BBT should be renamed the Big Bust Theory or the Big Fizzle.

Some Big Bang theorists were shocked, and some were panicked by the photos from JWST. They appear to cast doubt on their myth. Based on the published literature right now, “the Big Bang makes 16 wrong predictions and only one right one.”

Not a very good track record.

This problem was admitted by Ken Croswell in a New Scientist article where he says such a young age “…suggests contradictions that would destroy the big bang theory.” Breaks my heart.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle coined “big bang” during a 1949 BBC broadcast, although he did not believe it. He taught the steady state theory of origins that teaches the universe has always existed. That’s almost as silly as the BBT, but it does not require a Creator, satisfying most scientists.

Unbelieving scientists pretend that God does not exist (they might as well pretend the sun doesn’t shine), so they have decided that creation could not have taken place and Genesis is not a scientific or historic source. All right, then how did the universe get here? It is here! Trying to deal with that reality, they desperately posited the Big Bang Theory; but I believe the BBT takes more faith than creation! (The Bible does teach a Big Bang in that this world will end with a Big Bang!)

According to a high school textbook, “…a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation.

“Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form….Probably the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the solar system is the dust cloud theory. According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate….When the mass had swept up most of the material in an eddy, a planet was formed.” Proof? None!

Note that nowhere does the textbook tell the students where time, energy, space, and matter originated. Genesis 1 tells us when all four began. The Bible says, “In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”

We are told a fireball came out of nowhere and exploded, but the students were not told what caused the explosion. Explosions don’t just happen. Where did the hydrogen gas come from? That book should be listed as “mythology,” not science.

I would also like to know the origin of the scientific laws under which the universe operates. You know, like gravity, inertia, laws of planetary motion, etc. Who had the power to originate such laws? Also, did they precede or follow the Big Bang?

While many people assume the BBT is an accepted fact, some experts are not convinced the theory is valid. J. Trefi says that one problem with the Big Bang is “how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process.” Leslie, author and scientist, agrees by saying it “is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast.”

How did order come out of an explosion? Does that happen if a large firecracker goes off inside a television set? Why and how could it happen in the universe? Leading British astronomer Paul Davies wrote, “The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally.” Order does not come from an explosion.

Davies wrote in a New Scientist article, “Everywhere we look in the universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order….” Nobel Prize winner Max Planck agrees: “There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe.” Einstein seemed to concur, suggesting that the “high degree of order” was somewhat of a “miracle.”

Famous astronomer Alan Sandage confessed, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

One does not have to be a scientist to understand that obvious problem.

If the universe is the result of an explosion, how does it run like a Swiss clock? This was a comparison made by astronomer Johannes Kepler whose laws describe planetary orbits. Why, if the planets resulted from a big bang, do Venus and Uranus revolve backward, and why do at least six moons (out of 60 in our solar system) rotate around their planets opposite to the other moons? How could the same explosive thrust produce objects revolving in different directions?

It is no surprise the Big Bang has started to fizzle!

Astronomer Hoyle says that a “sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann Bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw, and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs.

American physicist Eric J. Lerner penned, The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. That sums it up succinctly.

It is mind-boggling to think how rejecting the BBT would impact academia. Professors, scientists, and writers would have to repudiate a lifetime of work, remove their books from bookstores, refuse future royalties, and, if they possess any character, refund their salary for teaching lies to gullible students.

Alas, they would also lose tenure.

Probably the biggest problem the Big Bangers have was voiced by A. Krauskopt and A. Beiser: “A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory….For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe: Where did the matter come from in the first place?” (Emphasis added.) That is the question that evolutionists simply can’t answer unless they are willing to whimper, “God.”

On Pat Buchanan’s national talk show, I debated Eugenie Scott, scientist/atheist/evolutionist  and president of the National Center for Science Education and major creationist critic. Reluctantly, she admitted that maybe God started it all! I had debated her earlier, and she was not willing to make that concession.

There are various theories as to the beginning of all things, but they can be distilled into two theories: God created everything according to the Bible record, or He did not. Under the column “He did not,” you can place the day-age theory, gap theory, theistic evolution, the Big Bang Theory, steady state theory, etc. Either He did, or He did not act according to the Scripture.

For those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that it means what it says, there is not an iota of doubt: God created the universe and everything therein in six 24-hour days! God very clearly tells us in John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” That passage is very clear, isn’t it? All things means all things.

Now, either believe God or not, but don’t play around with the facts. Maybe unbelieving scientists should look again at the Book that says, “Let there be light.”  It was not an explosion or expansion but an exclamation: Let there be light.

In Acts 17:24, Luke tells us again that, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” That is an affirmative statement that leaves no room for doubt. “God that made the world….” Did He or did He not?

If not, the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary, and if the Bible is true, evolutionists are untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary. And should be unemployed.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.'” And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

There are only four possibilities as to how the universe got here: First, it created itself, but surely no sane person believes that. Think that possibility through. How could something that doesn’t exist, create itself? A person who takes that position has not drunk long from the well of learning. In fact, he hasn’t even gargled! One main reason this first suggestion is not true is because it conflicts with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says that there is no new material or energy being created. It can be redirected but nothing can be added to the existing supply, so the first possibility is an impossibility!

The second possibility is that the universe has always been here! How about that? With that suggestion, the evolutionists wiggled around many problems with the first suggestion. The universe was not created by God or by itself. It has always been here! This second possibility is not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, which no evolutionist argues with, says that everything is running down. The Second Law screams disease, decay, degeneration, and death. So if the universe has always been here, it would repeal the Second Law.

The third possibility is that the universe is not here! Everything is an illusion! This possibility was suggested by ancient Greeks as they sat around their saunas. (Those guys spent too much time in steam rooms and it boiled their brains.) They suggested, “Hey, maybe we are wasting our time discussing how the universe got here. Maybe it isn’t here! We only think it’s here. We only think we’re here.” Of course, that possibility is contrary to the Law of Common Sense.

The fourth and last possibility as to the origin of the universe is–God did it! That’s it. Search out the great thinkers of the present and past and you will not arrive at any other possibility as to the origin of the universe. When sane people reject the first three “possibilities,” they are left with the fourth one: God created it! And if God created the universe, He could have (and did) create man. Evolutionists scream like a stuck pig when we bring God into the discussion, but if that’s how it happened, that’s how it happened. Sorry about that guys, but you are stuck with it.

In every talk show I’ve done on the subject, evolutionists have asserted “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost. Both evolution and creation are based on faith as informed, honest scientists admit; therefore students should be exposed to both. It’s incredible that Christian parents are taxed to promote a scientific teaching that is contrary to science and their religious beliefs!

It is a fact that thousands of qualified scientists don’t believe Darwin’s gradualism as taught in schools. Many others have many doubts about its validity qualifying for the moniker of, Darwin Doubters. And most evolutionists get apoplexy when we remind them of that fact! I’ll remind them since I like to see evolutionists sweat and squirm, and they don’t sweat and squirm with grace.

Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

World famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E. Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.

Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” No, but it’s being propped up at every secular university in America–with taxpayers’ money!

Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.

After evolutionists admit they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion; design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils; the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?

After those answers we’ll discuss how evolution can be true, being in conflict with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and various other scientific laws. We’ll also discuss frauds perpetrated by scientists to prop up their cockamamie theory.

It is a fact that Chuck Darwin, not a trained scientist, but an apostate preacher, fired a blank when he fired a shot heard around the world, and evolutionists are still cocking and firing that same gun.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad. No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

It’s also a fact that my critics always refuse to deal with these facts.

(Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam.  Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world. 

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation.  He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim.  However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.   

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncom-fortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate.  The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.    

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken. 

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

 Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.