Undeniable Read Online Free

who worked on the theory of the Big Bang had predicted. I asked also how we could observe stars that are farther away than 6,000 light-years, if Earth is only 6,000 years old. One would expect to see no light at all from such places, unless natural laws are overthrown for a while. So why do we see far more distant stars and galaxies in all directions? If there were a superpower, why would it (she or he) mess with us that way?
    For his part, Ken Ham avoided responding to any of these issues and repeated that he had “a book,” and his interpretation of said book supersedes anything we can observe in nature. I pointed out that his interpretation of his book is just not reasonable to anyone who examines the world with an open mind and curiosity. This foreshortened worldview is not at all consistent with the views of many of the world’s religious leaders. Finally, to tie it to my main concern, I reminded the audience of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. One of the duties of Congress is “to promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts…”
    One of the duties of all of us—parents, scientists, everyone—is to help educate the next generation, so they can succeed in their lives and help make the world a better place. Watching some of Mr. Ham’s videos in preparation for the event, I could not help but notice his kvetching about young people, specifically that they’re leaving his ministry. After hearing him out for more than an hour of his monologues, I gathered that they have trouble taking what he says to heart.
    The creationists press on, looking for ways to isolate their kids as much as possible and to indoctrinate them so thoroughly that no matter what the world throws at them, the children will grow up to do their best to accept a 6,000-year-old Earth. All the while, the whole lot of them have no issue embracing modern information technology, medicine, and food systems that enable them to conduct their extraordinary business. As I often remark, it wouldn’t matter, if it weren’t for the kids.
    The essence of the evening was captured by a question from the audience. Someone asked: “What would it take to change your worldview?” My answer was simple: Any single piece of evidence. If we found a fossilized animal trying to swim between the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, if we found a process by which a new huge fraction of a radioactive material’s neutrons could become protons in some heretofore fantastically short period of time, if we found a way to create eleven species a day, if there were some way for starlight to get here without going the speed of light, that would force me and every other scientist to look at the world in a new way. However, no such contradictory evidence has ever been found—not any, not ever.
    Mr. Ham responded that nothing would change his mind. He has a book that he believes provides all the answers to any natural science question that could ever be posed. No piece of evidence would change his mind—not any, not ever. Imagine this man or some of his followers on a jury. If their minds were made up, there would be nothing for the defense or prosecuting attorneys to do. No evidence would sway these jurors. They would refuse to use their intellect to assess the quality of evidence. They would not employ even the most rudimentary critical thinking skill. They would sit very politely, I imagine, but evidence would not matter at all. That is a very troubling prospect indeed. The rule of law would be ignored. They would be, well they are, excluding themselves from our society. They do not want to participate. I hope all of us will consider the potential consequences of this sort of thinking—or nonthinking. If there were a test of competency for voters, how well would they fare?
    At some level, as an altruistic human (a consequence of my evolutionary heritage), I feel bad for the creationists. They