The Limits of Science

The Limits Of Science

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, May 15, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, unedited:

In response to “Dinosaurs and the Bible”

I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists” Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief. While good science offers us a way to study the natural world and our surroundings in an objective imperical way...religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives spiritually. There is no need to attack evolution as false when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion. And the reason for that is because science is not able to enter the realm of the meta-physical and anyone who says they can is not practicing science. There is no conflict between science and religion. period. I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your information from less biased sources. Science will never be able to explain empirically religion. And on the other foot religion is not science and creationism is not science because it is not based on scientific fact. If you do not “believe” in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic resistence and let me know how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.

F.E.

Response:

With kindness, please see my comments below.

I do not intend this as an attack on any of you, I simply wish to comment on many of the flawed accusations you throw at “evolutionary scientists”

Such as? What accusations are you referring to and where are the references?

Evolution is not a belief...it is a fact. Religion is a belief.

Considering that evolution is a subset of the religion of humanism as clearly outlined in Humanist Manifestos, this puts you in a predicament. How can evolution be a belief and not a belief at the same time and reference? This violates basic logic and is a contradictions.

The Humanist Manifesto I is a religious document; Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

But more importantly, your definitions are skewed. Religion is a system of practices based on beliefs about the world and the past. Evolution is a framework about the past that can never be repeated or tested and must be accepted by interpretation and authority. That is, by all measures, a belief.

It also seems that you labor under the misconception that beliefs cannot be facts. So, if someone believes that computers exist, does that negate the existence of computers being a fact? Who determines what is “factual” and what is not? If something violates the laws of nature that we know but is accepted by most people, does that make it factual or not? (Evolutionary belief violates some basic laws of nature.)

Christians accept fact because they believe in an objective Creator who does not lie. Where, then, does the humanist find a basis for fact?

While good science offers us a way to study the natural world and our surroundings

Creationists agree here, and this methodology was developed by a creationist named Francis Bacon. But note that good science is observable and repeatable—unlike evolution and its historical postulates.

Francis Bacon, who developed the scientific method, was a devout Creationist; Public Domain

in an objective imperical way

But for objectiveness to be valid requires a correct worldview with which to interpret empirical facts. There are two worldviews competing here. Science is a useful tool for examining the universe, but humans are not objective.

We all have basic foundational concepts through which we interpret evidence—some starting with the Bible and some assuming naturalism. Few realize that the evolutionary/humanistic worldview must borrow from the biblical worldview to even begin its case. So, this undermines an evolutionary position right from the start.

Also, empiricism (that all truth claims must be obtained by experience), is self-refuting as that alleged truth claim cannot be experienced! In other words, empiricism can never be proven empirically.

...religion is a great partner (not alternative) to explaining our lives spiritually.

Creationists would agree as well, as correct religion is foundational to looking at any aspect of the world around us. Your argument here is self-refuting. That is, you define science naturalistically and then claim that naturalism and supernaturalism (religion) are partners. This is impossible, as naturalism does not allow supernatural beings or causes and supernaturalism requires them.

On the other hand, science (as in, observational science) is truly a partner in understanding the world—when we begin with God’s Word, since science is predicated on Christianity. So, for good science to even be a possibility is further confirmation of the truth of the Bible.

There is no need to attack evolution as false

But it is false. It contradicts Scripture in Genesis and Christ Himself and leads many astray from the truth of Scripture:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6, NKJV).

See also Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11. Also, Christians are commanded to demolish these false arguments:

We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5; ESV).

Third, we are warned not to succumb to such false beliefs:

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8, NKJV).

when the most well acclaimed scientists and associations such as the National Academy of Science is doing nothing to dismantle the foundations of religion.

First, this is the fallacy of appeal to majority. The majority of Germans at WWII either allowed or participated in the persecution of the Jews—but this doesn’t make it right.

Second, the NAS has aligned itself with the religion of humanism and has a history of attacking the truthfulness of the Bible. They promote the religion of secular humanism and naturalistic philosophies that deny the power of God through numerous articles and publications. This is hardly “nothing.” In addition, the president of the NAS openly recommends a leading humanist organization called the NCSE.^[1]

And the reason for that is because science is not able to enter the realm of the meta-physical and anyone who says they can is not practicing science.

And yet, evolutionists claim to transcend the metaphysical millions of years in the past to know for a “fact” what happened? This means evolutionists are not practicing science according to their claimed worldview. Scientific methodology cannot repeat the past. Evolutionary thinking is unrepeatable historical science, not operational science.

Let’s face it: there has never been a single experiment run over millions years—not even one—nor is this possible. Where is the science here? And scientists look for “God spots” on the brain and alternate universes to explain away how finely tuned our universe is, and the “evolutionary history” of religion. All of these are attempts to explain the metaphysical aspects of the universe (poorly) using naturalistic assumptions.

There is no conflict between science and religion. period.

You would be surprised to know that we agree, but I suggest you have tried to use a bait-and-switch fallacy here by calling science “evolution.” Evolution is not science. We all have the same science. The difference is the worldview by which we interpret scientific facts.

Science does not equal evolution; Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

I would appreciate that you read more literature and get your information from less biased sources.

This is the pretended neutrality fallacy. You are assuming that you and other humanists are less biased, i.e., neutral, all the while trying to argue for the evolutionary worldview. By “less biased,” do you mean scientific sources that agree with naturalism? We do, in fact, get a great deal of our news and information from mainstream journals and media sources. One of our goals is to reveal that there is no neutrality and that there are underlying assumptions upon which such papers and articles are written.

“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. (Luke 11:23, NKJV).

God makes it clear in His Word there is no such thing as neutrality. You are either for Christ or against Him. I want to encourage you to reconsider the claims of Christ and what it means to be saved.

Science will never be able to explain empirically religion.

Science doesn’t explain things; this is the fallacy of reification. Science is a methodology to determine observable and repeatable facts and is predicated on biblical Christianity. In other words, it would be impossible to do science without the Bible being true. Secular humanistic-believing scientists may try to explain things within their story but “science” doesn’t explain things.

And on the other foot religion is not science

With this statement, you have no choice but to agree that interrelated religions like humanism, naturalism, and evolutionism are not science. Additionally, belief in the One true God of the Bible who is logical and cannot lie means that scientific inquiry makes sense.

Science is possible because the universe exhibits uniformity. There is no reason to divorce exploring the world around us from the eye-witness account of the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

and creationism is not science because it is not based on scientific fact.

Science in its strictest sense means knowledge. Creation and evolution have little to do with scientific facts because we all have the same scientific facts! Creation and evolution are both subsets of religions; biblical Christianity and secular humanism, respectively.

The worldview of biblical Christianity, from which creation comes, is the same worldview by which science is possible. I suspect that what you mean is that creation science is not based on naturalistic assumptions about how the universe and life came to be. In that case, you’re correct. Facts are not in debate.

If you do not “believe” in evolution you should do some research on anti-biotic resistence and let me know how to explain what happens. I won’t hold my breath.

Perhaps if you did some research, you’d see that we’ve shown how antibiotic resistance fails the test as evidence for evolution (see Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?^[2] and Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?^[3]).

Here’s an example: how is H. pylori changing into defective H. pylori support for the general theory of evolution? First, the resistance is moving in the wrong direction for evolution (losses), and second, changing these bacteria into the same bacteria is not evolution!

Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

I want to encourage you to reconsider your faith in the evolutionary worldview. That philosophy is a dead end logically, morally, scientifically, and obviously religiously. I encourage you to re-consider the claims of the Bible, particularly Christ because that is what it is all about—we are all sinners and all have fallen short—even me.

But by the grace of God, Jesus Christ, the infinite Son of God, took the infinite punishment from an infinite God, to make a way of salvation. Jesus is calling all people everywhere to repent. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). It doesn’t matter how many steps you’ve taken in the wrong direct, it is only one step back.

With kindness in Christ.

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

* Images generated by ChatGPT

---

[1] nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution.

[2] Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?, Dr. Georgia Purdom, July 10, 2007, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria.

[3] New Answers Book 1, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., Chapter by Dr. Purdom entitled: Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2006.

Too Many Theories?

Too Many Theories?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 15, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, unedited:

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year. I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts. Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true. It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming. The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science. Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life. Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA. Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

J.P., U.S.

Response:

DNA; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Thank you for contacting the ministry. Please see my comments below and note that they are said with sincerity and respect.

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year.

Thanks, I hope it has been challenging you.

I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts.

The reason some people say this is usually that they fail to understand the difference between a “fact” and an “interpretation of a fact”. For example, a fact would be that a cow has DNA. A [false] interpretation is that “the cow evolved from a microbe a long time ago when no one was there to observe the process because it has DNA.”

Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

Scientific thought thrives on competing models, even models that respect the 6,000 year age of the earth. So, I’m not certain why this would bother you. It seems strange that of the “no less than three” models, only one of the three models that were listed is given much credence on the website. Perhaps you have confused this with things that you have read elsewhere.

But on the subject of distant starlight, those who often ask this question are rarely aware that in a big bang, they also have a light travel-time problem (Horizon Problem).[1] The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight exchange in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework to make a uniform temperature in the universe[2]?

The Horizon Problem in physics means there is a light-travel time problem in the big bang scenario (and other long age models) and I oppose big bang modes and stand on the biblical model; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.

1.     Speed of Light decay (e.g., researched by Mr. Barry Setterfield): Most creationists reject this now, but we encourage researchers to keep working on it. It ends up with too many problems with all other contestants of the universe changing but the evidence of this is lacking. Furthermore, as people really researched the speed of light over the past three centuries, it really wasn’t changing as previously thought but has remained largely the same. Though the CDK model has problems, even some secular physicists have appealed to a changing speed of light to ameliorate problems with their own models.

2.     Light in Transit (most reject this as well): This is the idea that the starlight was already in transit when God created the stars. However, stars blow up into supernovas like SN 1987a, etc. and none of this would be real, but merely starlight made to appear like a star and a supernova, etc. This seems far too deceptive, so most creationists have rejected this idea. 

3.     Relativistic models:

a.     Dr. Russell Humphreys (White Hole Cosmology based on God stretching the heavens. According to Einstein, if you stretch the fabric of space, you get a time change. Many passages mention this: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Zechariah 12:1, etc. This model works well with distant objects but things closer to our galaxy, it doesn’t seem to work well.[3]

b.     Dr. John Hartnett: Similar to Humphreys’ relativistic model with a bit more miraculous attributed to it during creation week.[4] He also has a model where he utilizes Carmellian Physics. But this model actually assumes Dr. Jason Lisle’s model [below] to work it out. Dr. Lisle first submitted this in the peer review years ago.[5] 

4.     Lisle-Einstein Synchrony Convention Model or ASC (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention): This is based on an alternative convention that is position based physics (think time zones) as opposed to velocity-based physics. Einstein left open both options but did most of his work on velocity based, and so have most physicists since him. 

Dr. Jason Lisle built on this position-based physics and the one direction speed of light which cannot be known and it solves distant starlight. Einstein pointed out that time is not constant in the universe, so our simple equation [Speed = Distance X Time] is not so simple anymore. But this model is based on something quite “simple”. Think of it like this:  You leave on a plane in New York at 1 PM and you land in L.A. at 1 PM. But you might say, “The flight took about 5 hours when you rode on the plane”. 

If you ride a massless light beam time goes to zero and it is an instantaneous trip according to general relativity; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Here is the difference: according to Einstein, when you approach the speed of light time goes to zero. So, if you rode on top of a light beam from a star that was billions of light years away to earth, it took no time for you to get here. So that 5 hour flight was a “no hour” flight for light. Based on this convention-based model, light left distant stars and arrived on earth in no time and this fulfills God’s statement that these lights were to give light on the earth in Genesis 1:14. Of course, the physics is more complicated than this, but this analogy should give you an idea of how the model works.[6] 

5.     Miraculous/Future models (we would leave open miracles or future models as well.) 

Of course there are other models. Although the question of distance has been argued for many years, few today argue along the lines of distance being the only reason for alleged long ages: 

1. Parallax (Earth is on one side of sun; view stars. Then when earth is on the other side of the sun; view stars – it makes a very small triangle and we can calculate the distances. This is called parallax.
2. Red Shift: Some stars are so far away that the triangle of parallax does not solve it. So then we move to “red shift” to calculate the distance. Not as accurate but seems to do the job. Some objects, like many quasars, do not work properly with red shift. But these are assumed to be accurate for long distances.

The actual relevant equation is:

ds = c x dt

Here, c is the speed of light, which is constant in vacuum (with respect to any observer) according to relativity, ds represents distance, and dt represents time. Many fail to realize that the flow of time is not constant in the universe but can change due to different circumstances, such as velocity frame dilation or the presence of a gravitational field.

When the fabric of space is stretched, the differential for time must also change, as c is constant. Interesting that God often stated that He stretched or stretches out the heavens: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 44:24, Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, and Jeremiah 10:12.

The relativistic models are working with this concept. Interestingly, the secular models often appeal to inflation of the universe as a conjecture to try to solve their starlight problem. It is puzzling why we get criticized for discussing the stretching of space, when secular scientists do the same thing.

Then there is cosmological time zone conventions, which uses an entirely different perspective from the time dilation models. And this solves distant starlight.

But as biblical Christians, we also leave open the possibility for miraculous events, considering this was done during Creation Week. God can create stars on Day 4 and have the light arrive at earth using miraculous means. This is not to be confused with light-created-in-transit, which we reject, as the light we would see if such an idea were true would not actually be from a star and God is not deceptive in any way and God saying these things were to put light on the earth would not necessarily be true.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true.

Many creationists would argue the same about evolutionists. However, the concepts of “science” and “truth” are really only meaningful in a biblical creation worldview. Apart from the biblical God, what would be the objective basis for such things? Jesus even said:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, NKJV).

Science, which came out of a Christian worldview, is an excellent methodology that confirms the Bible’s teachings. For example, the Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from life. We expect this, since all animals today are descended from the originals which were created by God. It is the same with humans.

Law of Biogenesis; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

My life came from my parents, who in turn came from their parents, back to the first parents, Adam and Eve (Hebrews 7:9-10). Eve’s life came from Adam, and Adam’s came from God, who is the ultimate life-giving source.

In an evolutionary worldview, life ultimately arose from non-life. This has never been repeated and violates the Law of Biogenesis.

It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.

Such as? Besides, all evidence is interpreted in light of a worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only the Bible can.

The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.

Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.

Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life.

DNA does contain information that generates the proteins of organisms and is essential to life. I fail, however, to see how this necessarily supports molecules-to-man evolution. This is what is expected from an intelligent Creator God.

Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA.

We agree that quantum physics explains the interactions of (subatomic) particles, but what does that have to do with errors in the copies of the DNA during the replication process at the molecular level? Since mutations are allegedly random (outside of programmed mutations which is a design features in some critters), they cannot generate the information necessary to drive particles-to-people evolution.

Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

Since archaeology is the study of the remains/artifacts of peoples and their culture, then are you agreeing with the ministry that people have been around throughout the duration of time that the fossil layers have been laid down? Perhaps you mean that geologists illustrate your point, though the fossil record is not as “supportive” of evolution as many seem to think. In fact, creation geologists see quite well that the fossil record (layering and all) is excellent evidence for the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day. Geological layers don’t speak for themselves.

I encourage you to carefully consider the implications of the position you are espousing. Life has never been observed to come from non-life; no one has ever observed millions of years of progress; no one has even observed a single-celled organism, such as a protozoa, evolve into a zebra. When you realize how bankrupt the view of molecules-to-man evolution is, consider the claims in the Bible. An encouraging passage is Jesus’s statement about the joy among angels when people accept His free gift of salvation and repent:

“Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

It doesn’t matter how many steps in the wrong direction you have taken, it is only one step back to receive Christ as Lord of your life.

With kindness, God bless.

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Light Travel Time: a problem for the big bang, Robert Newton, September 1, 2003, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time.

[2] Some may appeal to an ad hoc solution such as “inflation” where the universe rapidly expands for no reason, then suddenly slows for no reason, but this still doesn’t solve the Horizon problem. 

[3] See Dr. Humphreys’ book Starlight and Time for more details.

[4] See A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, Dr. John Hartnett, TJ 17(2):98-102, 2003.

[5] Hartnett’s was presented at the ICC  in 2008 (International Creation on Creationism) see: Starlight, Time, and the New Physics in the 2008 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Ed. Dr. Andrew Snelling, 2008.

[6] For more see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight  (Distant Starlight: Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) and the technical journal article: ASC – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/ anisotropic-synchrony-convention

Hilariously Illogical!

Hilariously Illogical!

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 23, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, explicative edited out:

The information on your website is so illogical and wrong that it’s hilarious. Yet I feel worried that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$. I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian. And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland? Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true. It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them, but to take its word literally? The bible is a historical book, which has been edited and changed over history. This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous. Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking. The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting. Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity. This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains. It’s just sad!

A.D. Australia

Response (point-by-point style):

Thanks for sending the email. I am replying below to your comments and questions. Please note that my comments are said with sincerity. (I understand that tone is sometimes difficult to display in writing, so I wanted to be up front about it.)

The information on your website is so illogical and wrong

Such as? This is called an unsubstantiated allegation. So, I’m surprised such a claim was made without any backing. We want the information on the website to be both logical and correct, so if there was anything to be challenged, please point it out so we can revisit it to make sure it is accurate and modify it if necessary.

Based on the humanistic worldview promoted in your email (i.e., the Bible is not true), why do you think logic exists? For logic to exist, the Bible must be true. The sheer fact that you believe logic exists betrays the very worldview to which you pay lip service. In other words, your worldview is self-refuting.[1]

The battle over morality is a matter of God's authority vs. man's faulty, imperfect, sinful understanding of authority; Image from Presentation Library

that it’s hilarious.

This is an epithet fallacy. But consider the humor of someone claiming something is wrong and chuckling about it, and yet they cannot name why it is wrong.

Yet I feel worried

Why would an evolutionist worry (see Luke 12:22)? If everything follows either purely random processes or purely predetermined material results of chemical reactions, then why worry? In such a worldview, this is illogical.

Again, the fact that people worry reveals that they want some sort of moral code, which is meaningless in an evolutionary worldview, by the way. But I’m glad you have the sense of worrying because it means that you want morality. I want to encourage you to realize that morality comes from God.

that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$.

This is another epithet fallacy.

I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian.

Why? The feeling of embarrassment in an evolutionary worldview is simply chemical reactions in the brain and is no different from chemical reactions for love and compassion.[2]

But again, why the sense of morality in an evolutionary worldview? What is going on here is that in your heart of hearts, you know God exists (Romans 1:20–21), and God is the basis for morality since He is the ultimate Law Giver. You are trying to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18), but you must still borrow from the biblical worldview in order to uphold some form of morality.[3]

And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland?

Not supposedly; Mr. Ham earned it years ago. This should come as no surprise since Christians earn advanced degrees every year at universities all over the world and are not anti-science. But consider that science is possible simply because the Bible is true, so this should come as no surprise either. In fact, most of the great founders of scientific disciplines believed the Bible such as Newton, Boyle, Galileo, etc.

Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true.

Ditto. What makes things true is predicated on the possibility of truth existing. In a materialistic, atheistic universe, why would truth, which is immaterial, exist? This is a major problem for materialists like atheists. Of course, truth is not a problem for Christians since God is both the truth (John 14:6) and the source of truth.

Without His Word, truth is meaningless. Of course, there is so much more we could dive into from this point, but that’s another discussion.

It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them,

But morality is meaningless if God does not exist. In a purely evolutionary worldview, chemicals react. Why would anyone care about morality unless there is an ultimate standard to reveal what morality is? God is that standard, and in His Word He has told us what is right and what is wrong.

but to take its word literally?

What do you mean by literally? Literally has traditionally meant to take something the way it is written (not the false modern concept that everything must be taken in a strict literal sense—i.e., that the metaphorical use of “pillars of the earth” means the earth is sitting on top of pillars in space). If it is a metaphor, then it should be understood as a metaphor. If the writing style is literal history, then it is literal history and should be interpreted as such. If it is a song, then follow the principles for understanding a song. This concept is entirely biblical.

But consider something else here. What if I were to argue that evolutionists should not interpret evolutionary papers literally when they use metaphors? They should interpret them in a strict literal sense. Would the evolutionists accept this? Not at all. So why attack Christians for trusting what God’s Word says in its context and literary style?

The bible is a historical book,

Yes, but it is more than that (psalms and songs, genealogies, prayers, prophecies, etc.). But I’m glad you agree that it is a historical book in some sense anyway. This very premise challenges the evolutionary ideas of origins at their very core. So how can one trust an evolutionary history of billions of years, knowing the Bible is indeed history?

which has been edited and changed over history.

This is basically a contrary to the fact conditional error fallacy. Any student of this subject would say the opposite after only a little research. The Bible’s words have been attested to through thousands of ancient manuscripts that repeatedly affirm the texts have been faithfully transmitted to us.

This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous.

This is false and is another epithet fallacy, as well as equivocation. As an aside, it should have been obvious on our website how much we do love and enjoy science. However, I think the equivocation fallacy is pertinent here. Equating science with an evolutionary worldview is a fallacy.

The issue is not science versus religion, as many seem to think. It is worldview versus worldview. More specifically, it is humanism (with its views of evolution and millions of years) versus biblical Christianity (with its views of creation and thousands of years).[4]

We both have the same science, and when it comes to repeatable, experimental science (known as operational science), both evolutionists and creationists would agree almost every time! Where we disagree is our interpretations of the past (i.e., origins).

The reason we disagree here is due to our differing authorities. Is God the ultimate authority, or is mankind the ultimate authority on the subject? This is the debate—humanism versus biblical Christianity.

It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)

It will be a sad day when people who rejected God stand before Him in judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and tell Him that they trusted the false ideas of man over what God lovingly revealed to mankind. How should a just God respond?

Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking.

We agree, but again, this view is only possible because the Bible is true. (Keep in mind that the point is not that people need to believe the Bible is true, but simply that the Bible is true.)

The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting.

Again, this is an unsubstantiated allegation and question-begging epithet.

Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity.

This is a reification fallacy. “Science” doesn’t explain things; it is a methodology. People use it as a tool to help explain things, but science doesn’t make the statements; people do. This reveals how much faith is given to the religion of humanism. People have such faith in other people to come up with strange stories to explain things. This puts the ultimate authority in mankind. When the ancient Greeks didn’t know the answers, they came up with some fancy stories that fit within their worldview. And sadly, generations of people believed those stories, and now we look back and call those stories mythology.

The same thing is going on today. In an evolutionary worldview, when people don’t know an answer, they come up with stories that fit within their worldview (e.g., Oort cloud, abiogenesis, missing links, etc.) I look forward to a time when people look back and the evolutionary stories as mythology. But the point is that evolution, like Greek mythology is a product of the religion of humanism.

The issue is that when God speaks on a subject, He cannot be wrong, but fallible, sinful, imperfect human beings can and will be wrong when they try to explain things, especially about the past, apart from God and His Word.

This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains.

Again, this is a reification fallacy. “Science” does not explain things; people do. I’ve had some people say science speaks, tells, or explains things to them, but what they really mean is that scientists speak, tell, or explain their views of the data.

Also, this is another unsubstantiated allegation.

Moral relativism is based on a false understanding of history. Image from Presentation Library

It’s just sad!

This is an appeal to emotion fallacy, which is especially illogical in an evolutionary worldview because everything would ultimately be meaningless (like sadness) in a strictly chemical universe. This actually undercuts the anti-Bible argument that has been presented in this email.

I want to encourage you to consider abandoning the humanistic worldview with its materialistic evolutionary bent. A materialistic evolutionary worldview is illogical on many fronts (such as having no basis for logic, which is immaterial, and no basis for truth or knowledge).

With that in mind, I would like you to consider a biblical worldview, which does have a basis for logic, truth, knowledge, and more—including morality, which seems to be important to you (to your credit). Please take some time to read this message entitled What Does It Mean to Be “Saved”? This extended article explains salvation, one of the major themes in the Bible in an easy to read fashion starting at the beginning.

With kindness in Christ,

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Atheism: an irrational worldview, Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis website, October 10, 2007, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational.

[2] For the reader, Ken Ham, who is originally from Australia, was the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. 

[3] Evolution and the Challenge of Morality, Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis website, April 14, 2008, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/14/evolution-challenge-of-morality.

[4] See The New Answers Book 2, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., chapter entitled: How old is the Earth? by Bodie Hodge, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2008, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2024/05/how-old-is-earth.html.