How to Survive and Thrive at Summer Camp

I write this with 6 summers spent working at Hume Lake Christian Camps, I do not think any of these tips are particularly specific to Hume, if not except that I am writing from a perspective of a large camp staff. These are my suggestions on how to have the best camp experience for all you Summer Camp Staff this summer. In my span of employment at Hume I have worked in the Dish Room, Support Services, Ponderosa Lifeguard, and Security. My first summer I was 19, the last I was 31. Part of writing this is my longing to return this next summer but having to recognize this season has passed… for now.

1. Do not start a relationship! I get it, oh boy do I get it. This is especially difficult for those of us coming from churches with less than flourishing college ministries or going to secular colleges without robust campus ministry, for those single and ready to mingle to, mingle. Further heightening the attractiveness of the idea, everyone else on staff is doing ministry all around. You are both serving God, maybe even in the same department, so you see each other more than anyone else on a regular basis. I get it. I also say this knowing a good number of friends who have met their spouses at Hume. They are the exception not the rule, and I write this as a point of general rules. By exception I can also say from experience of working with over 1000 summer staffers across my time, exception means the 1:100 chances, maybe. I say this because I have seen time and again, people meet, especially in the first few weeks of camp, and that other (not yet significant other) often becomes the primary focus of time, emotional energy, and general attention. Sometimes it even seems justified because the workday is spent serving God in your respective position. A really good thing to practice instead, building friendships with people. Between the severance from technology, the close proximity, the physical, emotional, and spiritual strain this is a magnificent opportunity to make life long friends. Much in the same way you might have gotten to know friends in the dorms on the same hall, but this is amplified by the shared experience of working in ministry together. Also keep in mind, what will likely happen when summer is over. Do you go to school or living within reasonable proximity to one another? Is the person (sadly) one way around Christians than they are around the World? The bubble that the Camp Experience offers is both a blessing and a curse. Be aware of it. At most make friendships from which a relationship might result, but wait for the camp goggles to wear off.
2. Take advantage of Spiritual Growth opportunities. Okay, this might be Hume specific as I cannot speak for all the opportunities at other camps. Between Bible studies with full time staff, Summer Preaching Series, Chapels, or even your own quiet time, be sure to spend time to maintain your own spiritual health. The formal teaching opportunities have fantastic speakers from all kinds of backgrounds, at least one of them will speak on a topic you will have interest. Many of you have not worked a job with such demands like this before. No matter how busy you get, and even though that business is doing ministry, you still need to take time to be fed. This is a similar effect I see at Christian campuses. I attended two different Christian universities, both had the same problem. Between required chapels and Bible classes, many students fall into a trap of thinking they are spending sufficient “God time” fulfilling those obligations. In doing so, they neglect to take part in a local church in which they might be exposed to a diverse population of Christians other than 18-22 year olds.
3. Get creative with the meals. For at least 5 of my summers the menu has been more or less the same. Embrace the sandwich bar at lunch. Get creative with the salads. Examples, chicken sandwich day makes for a nice crunchy chicken salad. Occasionally there is a staff menu item separate from the regular menu, get it, no matter what it is. Salad is your friend, Cisco takes its toll. Don’t limit yourself to the iceberg lettuce either, I’m not about to have a nutrition meeting right here, but use the spinach. Your digestive tract will thank you.
4. You can survive without technology. This some has a caveats, unless you have a specific job that includes many hours of low activity or you are taking a summer online class (Good Luck), leave the laptop at home. I know we have all at one point in time thought the idea of a technology fast would be good for us. This is a grand opportunity to realize what life was like before everyone had a smartphone, mostly. There is no cell reception and internet is not worth waiting for, instead you are in the middle of the forest surrounded by trails, trees, and some of the best creation God has made. Enjoy it. This will also give you a good chance to do #2 since you won’t be distracted with all the social media our generation is so well known for.
5. Watch the sunrise and sunset at least one time during the summer. At the beginning of the summer it is really cold (40 and below), but sunrise happens later. I want to say it starts around 5:30 if you want start when it is still dark. By mid-July, the temperature is much more bearable but sunrise starts earlier. For more approximate times check with the Night Shift security guys, they will know.

6. Limit time spent “Down the Hill”. My first summer I never went to the city, I was having a blast kayaking, reading, and just being in the presence of creation. Not to say Fresno is not also part of God’s creation, but it is not as enjoyable as Hume. My second summer I went down almost every weekend. It is nice to go hang out with friends, catch a movie, escape from the camp menu, In-n-Out/Chipotle/etc. I am not recommending about never going down the hill, but be mindful. It is a 3-hour round trip and at least half a tank of gas. Summer camp pay tends to keep us keenly aware of the service aspect of this ministry, a trip down the hill can get expensive. Also, remember you are in the middle of Sequoia National Forest. There are many sights you can see and explore and you already in the middle of it!
7. Get to know people in other departments. You will more than likely get close to your team. You will spend more than 40 hours per week with them, it is somewhat inevitable. Living arrangements and off time provide great opportunities to get to know people in other departments. This is especially true for departments like Support Services, Food Service, Security, and Concessions. Each of these departments give days off, not on the weekends and usually only a couple of people from the department at a time. If you only hang out with people from your department much of your days off will be spent by yourself (not on purpose) or awkwardly looking for something to do. Last summer I made friends with High Adventure people, almost every week I got to play paintball with campers. Help other department staff by volunteering and getting to know staff in other jobs especially if you want to return for another summer. Camps tend to be small communities, it is not difficult to become part of the family. This is especially true for Full Time staff. They love you before they know your name. Know that and go from there.
8. Sleep. This is not general ed classes at college. The Resident Directors are there to help encourage you to get a reasonable amount of rest. Don’t fight it. It is easy to become perturbed with the authority over you at camp, you are still spreading your wings learning how to adult. One important aspect of adulting properly is giving proper due to authorities above you. Doing what you should do over what you want to do. Be the adult I know you are.
9. Bring a Hammock. Preferably with the longest straps you can find. It will be better sleep than you can ever get on a camp mattress and there are plenty of trees to set up your ideal spot. Hammocks help facilitate rest, great conversations, and being able to see a fantastic view. For some reason I did not own one until my last summer, one of my biggest regrets of Hume.
10. Remember this is Camp. Most people will not have too much trouble remembering this one. Do not treat a blessing like serving such a wide audience for the Gospel’s sake into a burden. Once I got to #8, I figured I should round it out to 10. Mission accomplished.

Divergently Emerging Church

I remember checking my myspace a couple months ago and the small blurb that attempted to advertise a new website ceased my attention for a quick second. This is the advertisements in the homepage which are usually directed towards topics match interests expressed in your profile, my page tends to get controversial religious based websites, Christian singles, or something relating to my military service. The one which caught my eye and focus for a couple seconds had a phrase on it claimed, if one wants to be a born again Christian one does not need to know doctrine. I wish I could quote it now because it was so absurd, but it was more than claiming personal relationship with Christ was the focus, it denied any rational consideration of orthodox Christian theology.

Fast forward to two weeks ago, I can’t remember what the occasion was, if I am not gaming or watching a movie I have music going. Most of you know my music collection consists mostly of the family radio Christian favorites. I was jamming to MercyMe’s Everything Impossible. I paid slightly more attention to the lyrics for some reason and was rather unsettled by them. Namely a selection of the chorus’ lyrics, “I know it all seems so illogical, but that’s okay”. Whether I can continue to listen to the song in good conscience, I don’t think I can. As with most situations I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, the theme of the song is how we ought to rely on faith and surrendering ourselves to God; however, with such a phrase to which praises one’s ignorance of theology as an act of faith, I cannot accept such a thing.

I question the kind of faith are we living when praise songs and catchy advertisements see irrationality as virtuous? The truly dangerous factor about those two, unless they are secretly heretics, they don’t realize the implications of their claims. If Christianity is illogical I would hope it would be investigated or abandoned.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of the old received their condemnation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.-Hebrews 11:1-3

A frequently referenced verse as it biblically defines faith and its virtue. Faith believes when God created all that exists it was created out of nothing. This particular topic of origins remains unknowable with any form of science. Any claim to such a thing is faith, while many scientific theories will claim a scientific answer it cannot be observed, tested or repeated; therefore, the empirical science’s limit is exposed. When God created the world, the natural law, the laws of science, and our souls, logic and reason were included. The foundational doctrine of God’s immutable character led Christians to discover scientific doctrine ranging from the laws of gravity, periodic table, genetic traits and more. The reasoning behind the claim; if we live in a world in which God does not arbitrarily intervene, in which nature will behave in a predictable manner then it can be tested to discover natural science. Remember it was not atheist scientists who laid the foundation of modern science.

I needed these two examples to lay foundation for where I really wanted to go. I believe we are on the edge of a Christian cultural renaissance, whether it be positive or negative we have yet to see as time and the products of the rebirth. Hopefully, you have guessed that I am speaking about the Emergent Church movement, if it can be called a movement. To pinpoint the definition is like trying to define it is like defining an absolute relativist; perhaps it is just as oxymoronic. I cannot do better than annotate similar behaviors/beliefs expressed from those who claim to be emergent, they have: lost faith/hope/respect in organized religion, emphasized individual faith, referred to undeclared form of organization or non-existent organization, nor set forth doctrine. To me it seems to be a cross between Christian anarchy and relativism.

It occurred to me I did not explain why I think those traits are harmful to the Church. Denying the importance of organized religion is in the words of one unabashed friend, “Calling the bride of Christ a whore”. I point to the model of the Trinity to follow we ought to be in community with other believers. I especially like the Acts 4-5 model in which it almost sounds like the early Christians made a communistic community until it was abruptly ended with a corpses of Ananias and Sapphira. At the same time I think the organization of church, many churches have lost the focus of what pure religion is. I do not believe the best solution is to turn our back on the organized church as a whole, simply reform and refocus where necessary. The increased focus on individual faith I do support. While at times it seems to practice our faith means we must congregate together frequently as an expression of our faith, I see that as our collaboration time, we ought to spend the rest of our time growing with our personal relationship with Christ.

I am hard pressed to find a non-churchese way of describing the “personal relationship with Christ”. An analogy I favor is being a good friend to Christ. Think of it in terms of how we become good friends with other people, I think those bonding characteristics translate well with Christ. A group of people that refuses to be called a group of people is more like being a nonconforming nonconformist. In an effort to not follow status quo, the rebel becomes the status quo and thus a living cliché, church culture is no different. The lack of organization within the emergent movement is beneficial because it requires more active thinking before everyone looks at each other and figures out the irrationality of it all. Namely because the foundation of theology which is common to all protestant Christians, even some emergents have abandoned. Try to sit down and have a conversation about faith in which everyone starts from square one and the shared doctrines have been discarded. The blind man is given the driver seat and thinks he’s ready for NASCAR. The only problem is he’s driving a minivan. I started to point out the dangers of leaving orthodox Christian doctrine in Necessary Beliefs.

Based on the aforementioned aspects of the emergent movement how do I find any positive value? For one, it is a faith much easier to spread; it has growing popularity with my generation especially. It prompts many people to reexamine their own faith and where they ought to go with it. It stirs the waters to say the least. While I find it to be a hazardous direction of theological faith I also believe it is potentially the next Great Awakening. I suggested in Losing Our Minds, that we have ourselves to blame and our culturally relevant forms of evangelism to credit for spreading a theologically weak faith. Perhaps this is the next level, both the Second Great Awakening and the Emergent church have; brought people back to faith, reached out to those who would not consider Christianity, and applied to the masses. I probably should not reference the emergent church as a past tense occurrence; I think we are still in the middle of it. Therefore, we can take the renewed interest in faith; the emphasis on an authentic relationship with Christ, reform the aspects of the Christian church which are un-Christian, then perhaps we revolt against the established church could be a growing experience instead of a dark moment of church history.

Where’s the Love?

 I would like to say my month of silence has produced some deeply insightful revelations to write about, sadly the bulk of my silence is the result of mental complacency. I find it funny how often I can take a break from writing out my thoughts despite the constant sense of accomplishment and continued self-development when I maintain a pattern of writing; enough with my excuses, on to the blog.

I have found over the course of the last 3 years that it is especially enjoyable to read two books at a time. I started doing this because the wear and tear on a single book being transported on my person constantly became irritating, especially when it was a decently thick hardcover. Currently I am reading Do Hard Things by Alex & Brett Harris (the younger brothers of Josh Harris) and Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I usually have opposing topics between the two books, but this duo has a certain common ground which I find even more enjoyable for each.

Blue Like Jazz (BLJ), subtitled "Non-Religious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality" is a tread softly emergent book. The author emphasizes Christian spirituality vs. Christianity. I would find a more appropriate comparison is Christian living vs. Christian Religion. In Divergently Emergent Church I mentioned the clear danger when dealing with Emergents due to the varying theology, as I am about halfway through it so far it seems okay. I chuckle to myself because the author throughout the book he casually mentions several prominent individuals such as Mark Driscoll and Josh Harris, but he did it in such a way as “The cussing pastor from Seattle named Mark” or “Josh, the guy that wrote a book about not dating”. Donald’s story is certainly a read welcomed to those turned off to religion. It is constantly a sad thing there are so many people turned off to Christianity because they have experienced Claiming Christians and not Christ. I’ll return to this as a bridge the two books.

Do Hard Things (DHT) is a battle cry to the American Christian Youth to challenge ourselves. The heart of the book I could not agree with more. I believe the 18-24 age group has the potential, constantly, to be the most powerful age group. Instead, be it the society which tells us if we want to be successful we need to stay in school for 22-24 years before we can potentially be useful, or our own laziness, or fear of risk. This is certainly a must read for Youth leaders and the youth themselves. The target audience of the authors is actually 13-19 as it is mostly devoted to teenagers and the accomplishments extraordinary teens have made past and present. Being that it has been more than 5 years since I left my teens and yet this book still encourages, I recommend it to all who want to impact the world.

Based upon the descriptions of each it doesn’t seem like the books would have much commonality. This is where the two meet each other, BLJ talks about a confession booth several Christian students made in the midst of a several day party at Reed College, under the connotation that the party lived up to the drunken orgies which celebrated all forms of debauchery. At the confession booth the Christians would apologize to the unsuspecting sinners about the mistakes of Christianity. In doing so the author tells the story of remarkable ground gained for Christ. On the flip side, multiple times throughout DHT when giving an example of different causes to impact the world examples like Ending Poverty, Curing HIV, and Saving African Children were given.

I agree whole heartedly with the theme of DHT in which Christians make a difference and living the faith in big ways. However, when compared to the confession booth which brought the drunk, stoned, and promiscuous into the arms of Christ, I had to ponder “Are the two methods consistent, opposing, or contradictory?” Is it just me or does it seems Christians tend to focus on making people moral instead of trying to reach a fallen world? While I support most of the social agendas of Christian organizations too often it seems fellow proponents get so focused on the legislation and policy they forget about the people it affects. Can we as Christians honestly ask ourselves that our faith has made us more known for our love or our hate? It often frustrates me that I fall in line often with the stereotypical "religious right nut job" due to my views; however, when those who disagree with me actually dialogue with me about how I think we ought to approach those I disagree with, or the improper tact of our supporters use, ground is often made both for the cause and for Christ.

I don’t think I would have gone so far as apologize to random individuals the sins of other Christians, at the same time Christians need to be honest about the mistakes that have been made throughout the world in the name of Christianity but not in accordance with Christ. One of my favorite clips illustrating this is in the Kingdom of Heaven. As Baelian goes to meet the King of Jerusalem we see this dialogue with a Knight-monk friend concerning a hanging they just witnessed.

“These men are Templars, they killed Arabs.”

“So, they are dying… for what the Pope would command them to do.”

“Yes, but not Christ I think, nor this King.”

When I think back to the early Church, amidst the Roman, Galatian, Ephesian, and Corinthian societies most anyone would agree that our culture is nowhere near their forms of cultural sin. Take your pick from the historical examples, the Coliseum which public entertainment was to watch people fight to the death, the cliffs used to cast undesired babies, or the rampant sexual promiscuity practiced throughout the land; Scripture doesn't address changing the laws of the land. It speaks of changing people's hearts, and with their hearts a minority of Christians shook the entire Roman Empire. Perhaps we ought to follow suit?

Response to Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

I was busy downloading as much material I possibly could to be prepared for the next year of absence from Youtube and Itunes when I came across a special jewel. I had some stimulating conversations with friends earlier in the day concerning the works Indoctrinate U and Expelled so my mind was already turning. I spent the last several nights keeping my late night entertainment limited to that of America and Britain's Got Talent shows, and watching clips of Happy Tree Friends and other funny videos.

Anyways, surfing away for more Ben Stein clips I come across Top 25 Creationist Fallacies in the ranks. I started watching, well because I don't really plan on sleeping and I need to ensure Itunes gets all the beginning Greek lessons downloaded as well as see what else I can grab for free. I write this as a point-by-point response to the video maker. It seems of better quality than typical and having watched the first several minutes, I am in a blogging mood.

If you so desire to watch this 23 minute video and read what I have to say I suggest you pause it at appropriate points. Then again it may be easier to open a separate tab/window to watch the video and scroll along the reading.

1. Foundational Bias: There is no doubt that Ken Ham is bias in his approach. Is that grounds to disqualify his ability to think and observe/interpret evidence at hand? We are all bias, how much we are willing to admit to it varies. Allow me to point to Richard Lewontin's Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say 

anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I dare not alter the text, it speaks for itself. Bias exists based on worldview, whether either party is willing to admit to that bias it varies from person to person regardless of the content of their bias. Ken Ham defined his bias being that of a biblical worldview which is explained in AIG's (Answers in Genesis) mission statement.

2. Straw Man Argument: Well explained, fairly useful summary of the fallacy, no argument until he uses the example. I have mentioned in previous blogs about my disagreements with Way of the Master and their rather anti-intellectual approach to evangelism. This happens to be a decent example; however, having seen the full episode it is not uncommon method that WOTM doesn't intellectually answer objections to faith. I suppose to setup a more correct setup would to spend more time to explain the Big Bang theory in greater depth. I personally have not found an issue with the concept "there was nothing and out of nothing there was an explosion that created everything"; because I believe God caused the explosion. While that might sound illogical to a materialist, I am satisfied because I believe in the supernatural. It seems easier to me to believe that out of nothing God created everything then out of nothing, nothing created/caused everything... or wait, am I just offering another straw man argument? Often, a Straw man can be interpreted as a poor summary.

3. Hasty Generalization: The document claiming to make the "hasty generalization" is the Dissent From Darwinism, which simply is an acknowledgement of various accredited/academic people whom state  

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 

They define random mutation and natural selection as the exact topics of dissent because to contest evolution is careless and rather dangerous. There are many forms of evolution, the most basic textbook example will introduce evolution as "change over time", often exemplified in what is known as micro-evolution or variation. Micro-evolution seems to imply that new minute traits were expressed as a form of evolution while variation simply implies that the traits are expressed traits which had existed in the genetic code in which no new information was added. The verbiage of the Dissent document is precise to ensure no mistake in the claim. In those terms, what is so dangerous about questioning descent with modification doctrine and putting it under serious scrutiny? The document doesn't say they believe it is wrong, false or any other damning verbs, just that they are not certain and believe random mutation and natural selection should be examined. I would put money on it that Expelled will mention Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box which points out that there has never been serious scientific scrutiny applied to evolutionary theory at the academic level to explore the operation of natural selection or random mutation at the biochemical level. Michael Behe goes further to point out there has not been studies to confirm how complex operations such as eyesight, flagellum locomotion and many other cellular mechanisms.

4. Argument From Authority: I would be foolish to hope he wouldn't use Kent Hovind, while I dare not judge a man's faith his message implies a form of theocratic or anti-government political stance. Thus he was imprisoned for tax fraud in 2007, destroying much of his credibility. Dr. Hovind's credentials were that he has his doctorate in science and was a teacher for 15 years or so. While I wouldn't call this a lie it is not the full truth, as I recall it the degree was from a Christian organization not fully accredited and the degree was in Christian education. He taught at Christian schools. I do believe Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) used his credentials in a misleading way. Oh yea, his sidekick in the video clip is his son. I am not aware of any other creationists whom flagrantly use this fallacy. I am not fond of Kent Hovind's tone, style or behavior towards evolutionists, the evidence he presents regarding age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, and the pre-Flood Earth is interesting to say the least.

5. Ad Hominem: I wonder how many people are aware of the full title of Origin of Species; it is viewable at 5:04. If "races" was meant by "species" then why wouldn't the book have repeated species instead of using races? The video maker does not reference the claim; it is my interpretation that "races" was in reference to human races. At the most innocent level it would be a higher classification than species perhaps order or class. It is easy to claim Ad Hominem when one does not include the full argument. Since the Ken Ham clip was cut, it cannot be known if the argument was further developed. However, it is true that in the late 19th century eugenics was popularized. I cannot prove that Darwinist evolution is the directly responsible for the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century and possibly a motivating cause for the Holocaust, the two can logically go hand in hand. If humans are the result of higher development then eugenics are possibly a form of selective breeding? I would also like to point out that the first minute of the video was almost entirely ad Hominem attacks.

6. Ad Populum: Wow, he asserted that Truth exists... I am speechless. Not really, though rather surprised. Kent Hovind's example clip... yea shot down. I likely won't be too much help to Kent in the rest of this.

7. Quote Mining: He points out that Stephen Jay Gould's quote about a lack of transitional fossils as a fallacy? Allow me to attempt to summarize Dr. Gould's theory (I actually don't know if it was theory or hypothesis via the scientific method) of Punctuated Equilibrium. As I recall this was in response to the seeming explosion in the fossil records in which developed fossils of various species have been found in leaps and bounds. The phylogenetic tree has been used as an example from simple life to be linked as the common ancestor to major classes: mammals, reptiles, amphibians etcetera. The existence of transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals for instance, or lack thereof, was popularly explained in two manners. One, punctuated equilibrium which millions of micro-evolutionary changes built up over millions of years which lead to an explosion of development to produce new classes of creatures, this was also proposed as a response that micro-evolutionary changes which did not add up to gradual eyesight or fish evolving to amphibians. The other manner of arguing the lack of transitional fossils was suggesting that instead of a common ancestor, instead there were multiple fully developed common ancestors. This would resemble many central points in the phylogenetic tree image instead a single origin. The possibility of many common ancestors also matches with the Biblical account of creation in which it says God created animals according to their "kinds" such as dogs, cats, primates etc.

8. Man on the Street Interview: I can't conceive why Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron are being supposed as Top Creationists... they intellectually made fools of Christianity in the televised debate with Rational Response. What is sad, basic theology or apologetical training could have actually had them stand a chance instead of showing the world yet another example of the lack of intellectualism in the faith. There are educated answers, they just didn't give them. Perhaps I should revisit this debate at length, let me know if I should bother, these do take some time.

9. Non-Sequitur: Kirk was doing so good until he used the absurd picture... I shake my head. In my opinion to more eloquently pull off the ad absurdum argument he should establish a more believable example, such as the Archaeopteryx as the supposed feathered reptile when instead it has been classified as a bird.

10. Red Herring: Distraction technique with a boot? The argument seems logical. The claim: long time is required to make fossils. The response: a fossilized cowboy boot is offered as evidence that it does not take a long time to fossilize materials. Long time is often referred to in the millions of years, by giving the example of a fossilized boot it is implied that the boot did not take millions of years to fossilize effectively answering the claim.

11. Personal Incredulity: While the video clip does not explain the full complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the form of locomotion at the bacterial level observed by a biochemist, his book devotes one of the most painful chapters to read about the irreducibly complex system of the flagellum. It is easy to claim fallacies are being used when one uses 30 seconds of a clip as examples.

12. Argument from Ignorance: Interesting that this is titles Top 25 Fallacies when I have really only seen two credible Intelligent Design proponents. Note: Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Creationists. Intelligent Design is a much broader form of origins that isn't even Christianity specific. I question the example's credibility and authority when she is referenced as the "Orange Lady"; her established identity is based upon her tint on the video...

13. Violation of the Philosophy of Science: This is follows the hijacked definition of science being synonymous with materialism i.e. the supernatural does not exist. Scientifically speaking because the supernatural cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, which are the points required for the scientific method, science indeed cannot prove the supernatural. However, the scientific method cannot disprove the supernatural because if an event can be observed, tested, and repeated then it would be classified under the scientific method of natural order. Isn't that a Straw Man? As noted in the Billions and Billions of Demons excerpt, materialism is an a priori belief. Lee Strobel is simplifying Paley's teleological argument. Essentially by observing complex machines occurring in the natural world one can logically deduce that an intelligent being caused those machines.

12. Equivocation: I would agree many people confuse theory by definition of the scientific method versus definition of the American language. Theory is the result of supposed multiple tests and just before it is established as law. However, Theory maintains a fair amount of gray area still based upon the experiments that formed the hypothesis and eventually became the theory. I would also like to point out the unidentified Islamic gentlemen is not what I would consider to be one of the Top 25 Creationists.

13. False Dichotomy: The character presenting one of the theological arguments is exactly right. By the contradiction of circumstances such as sin and then death or death and then sin it does come down to one or the other. However, I advise this argument to only be used with other Christians because the authority of Scripture must be agreed upon.

14. Begging the Question: I have heard Begging the Question being more like Straw Man than circular reasoning, but let's have it. The example questioned is the astronomical first cause, much related to the Big Bang. The theological advantage of the Big Bang is that it proves that there was a first cause. While the Intelligent Design adherent can credit the Designer with causing the bang, the atheist/evolutionist cannot. They are stuck with nothing blew up into everything. The example was not begging the question but implied reasoning.

15: Tautology: The claim is that without gravity no complex atomic structures would exist. This is a butchered version of fine tuning in which there are something like 300+ independent extremely precise constants found in the world, be it the exact rotational axis of the Earth, its rotational speed, distance from the sun, at the planetary level, down to the molecular characteristics that water's solid state floats and hydrogen's extraordinary strong bonding force. The examples of fine tuning get much larger and smaller than planetary and molecular scales. The significance behind fine tuning is that if a single one of the independent variables was off by a slight fraction then no life at all would have been possible on earth. It is a more complex form of the Teleological Argument on the largest and smallest scales.

16. False Premise: The evidence that the Universe had a beginning comes from the Big Bang. The argument that the universe ever "not existed" claims that the universe is in the same state as it has always been. The counter to the claim is exemplified by the expanding universe, the burning of stars and such. Suggesting that the universe has always existed argues for infinite existence, which is not observable, measurable, testable, or repeatable. Often arguing for infinite existence is attempted by the philosophers not the astronomers. The only issue with infinite existence is that infinity does not exist in reality.

17. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Sadly Kent Hovind is skilled with Ad Hoc; however the Canopy Theory is established as part of the Hovind Theory. Before Kent Hovind introduces his theory he explains it is out on a limb. The Canopy Theory is such a long shot because it attempts to answer why scripturally it did not rain until the Flood, how people lived so much longer, or how many factors of the pre-Flood world were very different from the world we have today. To possibly accept the Canopy Theory one cannot honestly follow the scientific method because it is used as a means to explain the pre-Flood world, which has not been critically examined beyond the creationist community.

18. Slippery Slope: A less eloquent way of logically deducing purpose provided by the renowned VenomX. Understandable argument but does not belong as support for creationism; it is an unsympathetic explanation of human psychology.

19. Correlation Implies Causation: ummm yea, the causation is in his 5th or 6th DVD presentation which does not address creation. Actually as I recall that DVD is titled "The Evil of Evolution", I own a copy, while interesting conspiracy theory and more developed form of the Slippery Slope argument, not effective in arguing for creation, used as a scare tactic against evolution. The variables mentioned are far too broad over far too much time to effectively or scientifically connect the dots.

20. Creative Math: Random is described as an unguided process following no order, correct me if I am wrong but if Natural Selection is an intelligent process wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? The evolutionary version of natural selection is blindfolded; if not then it is an active force of an unknown intelligence. Random mutations are just that, random.

21. Moving The Goalposts: While I know there are many unsatisfied people out there that think they have met the Kent Hovind challenge they are not the ones that made the rules. It is a rather lofty challenge the Kent Hovind setup, but the criterion for attaining the 250k is impossible to reach from his standard. The real issue at hand is that Kent requires evidence that proves evolution to be true in its present form not providing examples and arguments because any argument can be refuted. The Ali G example as his character ought not to be taken seriously and it also falls under the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy.

22. Just Plain Nonsense: When the heading is Ad Hominem in nature it cannot be refuted or rebutted because no argument has been presented. While I disagree with much of Kent Hovind's styles and attitudes the evidence he offers is unparalleled for some of his arguments, such as that dinosaurs are still living on earth today.

23. Outright Lie: If one has studied the curve in the recent 15 years there has been growing dissention with evolution and a growing popularity of ID theory. Calling the change in views an outright lie is more propagandist and suppressionist than any ID theorist I have seen. For a claiming Christian to lie about something they know to be false requires them to be especially evil because the foundations of the belief is founded on Truth and honesty. If one needs to lie to believe in their faith their faith is worthless.

I was almost audibly laughing the way the video ends with "make up your own mind". The video maker clearly did not approach the project with an open mind nor did he attempt to understand the positions or arguments of creationists. This was proven from the first minute of pure attacks upon creationists. The video maker never produced counter arguments or evidence just attempted poor rhetoric to poor examples of creationism. When I started this blog I was expecting some notable figures and arguments, there were two points, one Ken Ham and the other Michael Behe, however, Michael Behe is not a proclaimed creationist he is an ID advocate. This is yet another example of a poor response to creation theory.