The spiritual condition of the United States

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis gave an address to a worldwide audience earlier this week when he examined the spiritual health of America and challenged Christians to be prepared to answer the questions that people are asking.

As a response to this question Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has delivered his own ‘“State of the Nation II” speech, highlighting how far the U.S. has wandered from its moral foundations, and calling Christians back to their biblical roots.

Ham who is president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) the biblical apologetics ministry responsible for the world-renowned Creation Museum near Cincinnati, presented his speech from inside the Creation Museum and via webcast live last Tuesday.
In the advance publicity for the meeting which was webcast live he said:

You’ve heard from the president, government leaders, and others about the economy and the serious isues facing the country. But few of them address the deeper concern—our move away from a biblical foundation.
“Many Christians have been duped into accepting a false idea: that there is a ‘neutral’ position they can take in regard to social issues.“Some Christians even accept the myth that the U.S. Constitution declares that there should be a separation of church and state. They are hesitant to inject Christian beliefs into politics.”

Calling for a robust defence by Christian of what they believe Ham continued:

“God’s Word, however, makes it clear that there is no neutral position,” Ham continued. “God’s people need to unashamedly and uncompromisingly stand on the Bible and its absolute standards. We need to proclaim a Christian worldview and the gospel, all the while giving answers for the hope we have.”

The webcast touched on social issues such as abortion, “gay” marriage, origins, and the role of religion in society. The aim of the speech was and is to equip Christians with a clear understanding of what the Bible says on these matters—and find out how to defend the biblical viewpoint in an increasingly hostile environment.

“We need to learn what we can do to call America back to the only sure foundation—biblical authority,” Ham explained. “We need to stand unashamedly upon God’s Word in the face of a skeptical society and find out how we can do more than just watch our country slip into a moral quagmire. “The skeptical world expects answers. Get equipped to point people to the truth.”

During the course of the address he quoted from a speech by President Obama in which the latter affirmed that America was now a polytheistic nation. Ham and listed the ways in which the Christian 'marker stones' have been removed from public life. Ham argued that the 'reminders have been removed' and these aids to memory have produced a spiritual malaise which knows nothing of America's Christian heritage.
Prayer in schools, Scripture passages carved on government buildings, traditional marriage, the sanctity of life and the teaching of creation in public schools served as some of those reminders, he noted. But these have been and are progressively being removed, said Ham. And with that, younger generations are increasingly abandoning God's Word and making "man's word" their foundation.

Christians Together, 19/02/2010

Feedback:

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6)

	a h	27/02/2010 15:12
Alec, hugs and kisses. (okay, forget the kisses) U/Pb dating of zircons? I thought we could discuss something in laymans terms but alas, you have gone for ridiculously complicated so here - I'll let soemoen argue for me - http://creation.com/the-failure-of-u-th-pb-dating-at-koongarra-australia
	Alec (Guest)	27/02/2010 18:03
Alan Just two or three points 1) If YECs want to use scientific methods to advance their case, then they should go the whole hog and submit to peer review. Put it this way, If I were to discover serious problems with a particular analytical method and as a result it cast doubt on the veracity of data then it is in the interest of the whole scientific community to get it published so that people dont go barking up the wrong tree. People like Andrew Snelling are quick to cite all sorts of Earth Science journals in an attempt to add gravitas to their arguments. In which case they should be intellectually honest enough to go the whole hog Of course, they have no intention of writing to a scientific audience. Their audience is the layman and in particular the churchgoing layman. who might well be impressed by articles that cite all sorts of others work - a lot of the stuff Snelling mentions is actually perfectly valid Its a bit like the case of this student: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html who worked to get a PhD in order to bolster his creationist standing. His PhD thesis apparently refers to an old earth. Double standards at work here 2) Regarding the Koongarra deposits, this is the classic Andrew Snelling work. I have read the paper several times. And yes, there is some good stuff in there. It would be mad to deny it. He basically deals with a system that is by its nature unsuitable for Pb/U dating. Snellign does not "prove" that radiometric dating is dodgy. All he shows is an instance, which is well documented, that is unsuitable for radiometric dating! And for good reasons. If he had left it at that instead of trying to use it score some sort of YEC point, it would be a perfectly good paper Not every rock is suitable for radiometric dating. They have to be carefully chosen. That is why I mentioned Zircons. Zircons are the best minerals to use for U/Pb dating for numerous reasons - they are all well documented http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm gives good not too technical info. Point 3) Unfortunately, this subject is by its nature quite technical and I dont see a way to avoid it. I could say "Radiometric dating demonstrates an old earth" You could say "RATE has shown Radiometric dating to be unreliable, therefore the earth is young" Thats not too technical but shows zilch. Radiometric dating is probably the most useful tool for demonstrating the antiquity of the earth. The YECs have been trying to discredit it because they know it is so damaging to their position. For an OEC perspective, see: http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm (Christian OEC science) I rest my case. Just one final point and it is philosophical, rather than scientific. When I stand on the Lewsisian rocks of the Outer Isles, I am standing on rocks that are over 2000 million years old. That same night, I can look into space and see the Andromeda galaxy - I am seeing light that left it 2.5 million years ago (the most distant object visible to the naked eye) Awesome time,awesome distances, an awesome universe - that points to a much more awesome God than the YEC one! Anyway, I promise thats all I am saying on this subject. It will run for many a year I am sure...
	Penny Lee	27/02/2010 20:45
I'm amazed at how much confidence the average person has in scientific theories and practices. These are formed by other human beings who, like us, are also limited by human logic and understanding. God is not limited in any way and so why should we imagine that we can make definite statements about matters way beyond our realm or scene of time? It reminds me of the story of a child asking an old person what age they were. The old lady stated that she couldn't remember to which the child innocently replied, "Look at the back of your pants - mine say 'Age 6'" What may seem to be obvious to us, and agreed on by a large number of likewise people, may be wildly incorrect due to another factor of which we have no knowledge or understanding. Nothing wrong with trying to find out as much as we can about our environment but it should be tempered by the acceptance that we are not God and don't necessarily accurately interpret what we see around us despite it making logical or scientific sense.
	W Benn (Guest)	27/02/2010 22:30
Andrea as you know science is based on experiment,observation and peer review etc. It is logical to the best of our knowledge - let us not underestimate our knowledge, whilst at the same time retaining a degree of humility. A scientific paper is our best shot that a particular assertion is true. Scientists are very mindful of the fact that humans do not know everything and that theories may well need to be reviewed and changed in the light of new findings.That is what it is all about. When you cross a bridge in a heavy vehicle, without a warning sign to say you should not, it is mathematics that keeps you safe I guess. Science got us to the moon but often it is the failings of men that cause space deaths - rather than science. Agriculture has come on leaps and bounds thanks to science. Flying machines are down to science then there is progress in medicine etc. etc. It goes on. If it is religion that you are thinking about and the denial of it by people trusting in science please be tolerant of them - I am sure you are - they trust good old maths and the knowledge that has been accumulated by science. Many of them know that life is still risky and that science goes wrong from time to time - but overall it is still brilliant despite errors and occasional misue by horrible people! Then we have the Bible.The bible is based on faith in the accounts described in the bible. You may find passages in the bible beautiful and awe inspiring [and others horrific] but you will not find reliable maths or scientific facts. Even if the Christian religion is broadly speaking correct, it is still, to my mind, understandablw why some people prefer some solid maths, and intelligent discourse with educated people, rather than with far off comparatively uneducated people. It is disturbing that so many Christians have not read much of the bible whilst others have and hang on to every word. They are so trusting, so humble even in the face of reasonable evidence that some of the work in the bible is not written by the people said to have written it. I have some of the Gospel writings in mind. Humans wrote out the bible.Those people were limited by human logic and understanding. By all means have your bet about the truth and good luck - you might be right.
	a h	27/02/2010 22:43
mr benn "Then we have the Bible.The bible is based on faith in the accounts described in the bible. You may find passages in the bible beautiful and awe inspiring [and others horrific] but you will not find reliable maths or scientific facts. " That is utter garbage and the quicker you stop disrespecting the Bible the better. You're such a predictable snob. You exalt your atom of a brain against Gods vastness and greatness. You haven't got a clue. Try reading the Bible rather than accepting his unholiness Dawkins word for it.
	a h	27/02/2010 22:49
Alec, I am truly vexed for you. Do you know the Bible describes God as 'Unfathomable' and yet you assume from data given you by other 'men' that you can look at stars and assume how far away they are! Supposing they are wrong andd Einstein was the biggest fool of them all? What will you turn to for answers that deny the Biblical account of creation? What research have you actually done?
	a h	27/02/2010 22:57
mr benn Your ego is incredible. "Agriculture has come on leaps and bounds thanks to science. Flying machines are down to science then there is progress in medicine etc. etc. It goes on." Agriculture. Adam son Abel was an 'agriculturists' Medicines - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2038:20-22&version=NIV Flying? God said in Genesis "then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." Try again
	Penny Lee	27/02/2010 23:31
W, I've no problem with science - I think it's a marvellous and fascinating subject - and I consider God the master scientist. He clearly works in a mathematical, scientific and creative way. What I do have a problem with is statements of fact which scientists make about subjects way outside of their realm. No matter how clever the scientific methods used to determine their findings, it just isn't possible to claim that the earth is ...million years old or that stars are ...million miles away. Unless you were there at the start of time or could travel the distance concerned, it is simply an estimation and may be reasonably accurate or wildly inaccurate. I'm afraid I do think it is arrogant of the scientific community to have such confidence in their investigative methods. Were the Bible simply written by men, I would not have any more regard for it than other do but since I believe, not surprisingly, that it is God inspired then I have complete confidence in it. This doesn't mean I understand everything in it (and, yes, I have read it through many times) however, I understand what it necessary for my salvation. Equally, I also understand why those with no faith would not have much, if any, regard for the Bible since they prefer to believe in man's ability to understand the world and universe in which we dwell. I guess the belief that the world was flat seemed perfectly reasonable at one time until some were brave enough to look for themselves. Perhaps if we can one day travel the vast distances to remote planets, we will make discoveries which will completely turn current and accepted beliefs on their head. Until then, I suppose many people will keep believing what they are being told if for no other reason than they trust the ability of men to correctly interpret what they find.
	W Benn (Guest)	28/02/2010 10:57
What is this comment about snob and ego? My world view is about the celebration of brilliant human minds and their achievements not mine! In passing I made reference to those humans that are bad. In other words humanity is a mixed bag. It also strikes me that someone that is prepared to believe that water was turned into wine, on the basis of what they have been told rather than science,and having a go at others that seek to explore or perhaps dispute that claim - is a bit egotistical! The things that I am celebrating are there to see infact I have just heard a plane flying over! Just as some write that I deny God others seem to deny or deflate recent agricultural achievements in favour of a couple of biblical characters. Andrea if you think it is quite possible that the earth is not millions of years old because, afterall scientists are fallible humans, it seems to be a case of telling others with an opposite view, based on science [which is brilliant by and large but open to misuse/review] 'you cannot prove it' and that is not a good sign. There are so many discoveries that disprove the idea that the earth is - what was it? - 6,000 years old. Those that accept the total contents of the bible without question and reject other scientific ideas are in peril of wasting their alloted span on this earth - born in ignorance and dying in ignorance - even though they may well have been brilliant law abiding and wonderful people in the intervening period. Just as I am in peril of hell - I hear some say.
	Editor	28/02/2010 15:10
Alan asked: "Do you think I'm out of line Ed?" See first line of W. Benn's comment above.

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6)