Tag: answers in genesis

Posted in theology

AI: A Dangerous Shortcut for Pastors, Writers

Posted on by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

SYNOPSIS

I share Ken Ham’s insights on the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for pastoral work. Ham argues that using AI diminishes pastors’ theological study and reliance on God’s wisdom. The piece emphasizes the importance of genuine engagement with Scripture rather than easy technological shortcuts in ministry, as well as warnings about technology’s advance and potential for supplanting proper worship of the true Creator.

I respect Ken Ham. I’ve been following his ministry for a long time. I finally got to hear him at a G3 conference. His commitment to creation exposition, to Genesis 1-11 as the foundational belief for our faith, and his persevering and unwavering dedication that built the Creation museum and the Ark Experience is to be praised. He recently wrote a short-ish essay on Facebook about AI becoming a digital god.

I’ve been watching the rise of technology since the 1980s when a lot of things were invented, such as personal computers with graphical user interface (I took a computer elective in 1978 to try and learn coding language FORTRAN…), CDs, VCRs, video games and so much more. My father bought Pong when it first came out in 1972. Our family has always enjoyed the earliest and most advanced tech inventions.

In this era of the 2000s, the rise of sophisticated AI is a concern not only over potential plagiarism issues, laziness issues, or how easily technology controls us (cell phones, anyone?), or how the recent discovery of ‘kill switches’ in Chinese technology sold to the US could wipe us out with one click (Business Today), but because of prophecy.

Revelation 13 discusses how in the future one man and his cronies institute a global world economy and that all who wish to participate in this economy must accept the Mark (of the Beast). From my vantage point of having observed the economy since 1965, I have seen how this prophecy is becoming easier and easier to implement when it arrives on the scene.

In Ken Ham’s recent essay he asked the question, “Should pastors be using AI to write their sermons?”. I am re-posting the essay below in case the link in this paragraph doesn’t work for you, or if you are not on Facebook. He raises some good questions and makes some exhortations to pastors and others who should be wrestling with the scriptures instead of asking an impersonal digital presence to give them instant content.

Answers in Genesis, being a science ministry, also has other great essays pointing to the issues with AI and tech in general. For example, in this essay we read that ,

Google Co-founder Wants to Build AI as a “Digital God”

It’s an interesting notion, how easily we transfer worship to anything other than the only One who should receive it. We’ve seen it over and over in the Bible, and over and over in our own lives. I’ve written before about how prescient EM Forster was in his 1909 novella The Machine Stops, which a 116 years ago predicted this exact moment in technological time. It’s eerie how Forster predicted the loss of original thought, dependence then worship of a machine, and the lack of human contact. Friends and family are on screens only, not real life. You can read Forster’s novella online here.

AiG’s scientist Patricia Engler is an expert in AI, transhumanism, and other technological ethical issues. She recently spoke at the AiG for women conference in April on the issue of transhumanism. Others term the issue “human enhancement”. Engler explains in this 2023 article Thinking Biblically About Transhumanist Technologies at AiG,

The term “human enhancement” can mean anything from moderately improving someone’s natural abilities to radically modifying humankind.

I remember the splash the television show The Six Million Dollar Man made in 1973 when it debuted. He was an “enhanced human.” Wikipedia has a summary, which I excerpt- “a former astronaut, USAF Colonel Steve Austin, portrayed by Lee Majors… After being seriously injured in a NASA test flight crash, Austin is rebuilt (at considerable expense, hence the title of the series) with bionic implants. His right arm, both legs and left eye are replaced with “bionic” implants that enhance his strength, speed and vision far above human norms.”

Viewers including me, marveled at the thought that robotic implants could enhance human capabilities. Of course, 50 years later we are used to hip replacements, knee replacements, organ transplants, hearing aids for the deaf, and the like. We are also used to terms like cyborg, droids, clones, bot, algorithm…

Personally, it is my opinion we have passed a threshold with technology where its grip is on humankind is so tight we can never escape until we are called home. I hear of issues in colleges, high schools, and even younger of plagiarism in using ChatGPT, video games consuming minds for double digit hours on end, parents who prefer their phones to their children, critical thinking abandoned by the wayside in using Grok. Ask Google a question and at least it will yield links that the questioner must sort through and decide for herself if they are credible or not. Grok just tells you. I view AI-generated art as plain creepy. I hate to see it all, I just hate it. I pray the Lord comes for us soon.

As for Grok, the artificial intelligence Elon Musk has built, the name comes from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 science fiction novel, “Stranger in a Strange Land“. I read that book in the 1990s when a hippie friend gushed about its supposed deep truths and wise philosophy. I found it unintelligible. Though the title is taken from Exodus 2:22 KJV, the religion the book espoused is far from anything reasonable. But by secular standards, it seems wise and deep.

We must always remember that God is Creator. Our bodies are a machine on a level that no human creator could ever imagine when building a robot or an artificial intelligence. The sturdy delicacy of our bodies’ systems is amazing to behold. The brain is still a mystery. The Creator is worthy of praise for this and for all living things He has created.

Here is Ken Ham’s essay on AI (artificial intelligence). Though it’s aimed at pastors, anyone who studies, researches, writes on theological topics should be convicted by it. The link to his Facebook page where the essay originated is above.

Should pastors be using AI to write their sermons? I recently saw a website for a company that advertises itself as “Your AI-Powered Sermon Assistant” designed to help pastors “create better sermons in less time” using artificial intelligence.

A video on the website claims you can just type a word (like “forgiveness”) into the sermon builder tool and “instantly have a sermon ready to preach” and if you like the sermon “copy it, paste it, you’re ready to preach.” In other words, as a pastor you don’t even need to go to the Bible yourself to prep for your sermon—AI will do it all for you.

There are many good uses for AI—this is certainly not one of them! Yes, perhaps AI could be useful in pulling some cross-references, finding related passages, or pulling quotes to consider from church fathers (although resources to do all of these things already exist). But using AI to write sermons strips away a pastor’s wrestling with and studying of God’s Word. When a member of such a pastor’s flock comes to him for wisdom, counsel, and shepherding, he won’t know God’s Word to apply it properly!

And pastors surely should be praying (as any teaching pastor should do) for God’s guidance and wisdom as they build sermons. Be assured, AI doesn’t pray for any wisdom from God!

Contrast “copy, paste, preach” with these commands to pastors from God’s Word:

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)”

The work of pastoring isn’t meant to be easy—it’s laboring; it’s having patience; it’s training to be ready. It’s a hard calling, but a worthy one for those who are willing to be trained by the Word of God.

If you’re a pastor, don’t take the easy way out. Labor in your preaching and teaching as God has commanded you to. Don’t outsource one of the most important aspects of your job—opening the Word for your flock—to a robot!

— Ken Ham

FURTHER READING

Owen Strachan had some thoughts about digital media, here on Facebook

Tony Reinke wrote the book called God, Technology, and the Christian Life, you can download a 32 page sample here

Posted in theology

Can We De-Extinct Animals? The Science and Ethics Explained

Posted on by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

To answer the question in the title, no. The Dire Wolf was not brought back from extinction.

Even CNN Science wrote, The result is essentially a hybrid species similar in appearance to its extinct forerunner.

As usual, the ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) explains very well in this 5 minute video. Corinne Altman who is Zoo Content Manager tells why the dire wolf is not really brought back from extinction.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/12HoNhZPSCV

In 1993 when the first movie of Jurassic Park was released, people became intrigued with the idea presented in the movie that science could extract dinosaur DNA from petrified amber (tree resin) and de-extinct the dinosaur.

Jurassic Park made it seem like amber – fossilized tree resin – was a surefire way to preserve ancient DNA. Just stick a needle in, suck the blood out of a trapped mosquito or tick, and bingo – dino DNA. Source.

Of course, it is not so. Scientists are currently trying to determine how far back they can stretch the limits of defunct DNA. They have revived insects from amber, but only as far back as 2014. IS it a good idea to mess around with bringing back hybrids and genetically modified animals and insects?

Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences, the company behind the revived dire wolf and based in Dallas, … is even trying to bring back the extinct woolly mammoth by 2028… (Source).

Really? Like we need woolly mammoths walking around. Just google ‘yellowstone bison idiots’ and you will see that people who lack common sense do not need to mess with a woolly mammoth unless they think they can outrun one. Ahem…to wit-

More people have been caught being stupid around bison at Yellowstone

There are many considerations for the ramifications of genetically modifying the DNA of animals, of creating hybrids, cloning, and the like. In 2014 the BBC presented an article which raised some concerns about animal ethics-

Human problems: Newspaper articles about the ethical problems of genetically engineered animals are usually concerned about the danger these animals may pose to human beings (usually to human health), rather than any implications for the animals themselves.

Animal rights: Genetic engineering and selective breeding appear to violate animal rights, because they involve manipulating animals for human ends as if the animals were nothing more than human property, rather than treating the animals as being of value in themselves. –end BBC article

Can the genetically modified animal sustain itself in the wild? If not, will there be appropriate care for the animal? Will breeding this modified animal raise issues for future generations of this animal? Will this animal have health complications due to the fundamental change in its DNA?

The modifications of the Beltsville pigs led to many health and welfare problems in the pigs, such as arthritis and lung problems which led the researchers to terminate the experiment. Yet, some say that such unintended consequences do not present a moral dilemma since animals do not have eternal souls and are just animals.

I am not a PETA person by any means, but consequences, unintended, intended, physical, or spiritual, are, well, consequences. And consequences must be thought through.

We do have a dominion mandate as God commanded Adam to shepherd the garden and to keep it. God made man the highest living thing on the earth. Genesis 1:28b says,

fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

While there may be pros and cons to genetically modified plants and especially animals, using technology to better humankind’s life, there are downsides as well. A Pew Center survey conducted in 2018 found that “Americans neither indiscriminately accept nor reject genetic engineering experiments on animals“, and depending on the type of genetic modification pursuits, research into human health and longevity received positive replies in the Pew poll. However, one surprising result did emerge:

Perhaps the biggest surprise of this survey was that over 2/3 of people did not view using genetic engineering to bring back extinct animals as positive.

Yeah, no.

When thinking about God as creator and about man as having dominion, there is a limit as to how far to go. The problem is, even Christian scientists debate about where that line is. AiG notes that man used the technological tools that were available to him in several instances in the Bible.

In Genesis 30:37 we read that Jacob employed some type of DNA separation method to improve his flocks. In the New Testament, Paul repeatedly referred to grafting, which is in fact mixing DNA.

We are using the technological tools available to us now, as well. But do we go so far as to de-extinct an animal? And to what end? For merely cosmetic purposes like glowing fish? Or for more allegedly vaunted purposes such as enhanced biodiversity on the earth for animals or enhancing scientific understanding for humans?

Bob Blasdel, PhD Bioscience Engineering, Bacteriophage Biology said of the current push to revive the woolly mammoth,

An Asian elephant with a handful of Woolley mammoth genes would not be a Woolley mammoth, nor could one plausibly fulfil the same ecological role. At the same time, the breeding cycle of Asian elephants is just profoundly incompatible with the experiments that would be needed. We would be talking about thousands of miscarriages on the path to getting viable offspring, there would be years between each attempt for every reproductive elephant making these potential offspring, and there wouldn’t be enough elephants in the whole world to make meaningful progress over the course of centuries.

To which a commenter asked if it was actually technologically possible at present to de-extinct the prehistoric animal, he thought it was just an ethical dilemma? Blasdel replied,

It is usually presented that way because the ethical dilemma is more interesting and accessible. Besides, who wants to do algebra with elephant menstrual cycles, or consider the challenges of appropriating all of the reproductive age female elephants in Thailand…?

Which brings us back to the moral dilemma of putting all those female elephants through all those miscarriages, so why? In order to allegedly restore the tundra to its original climate?

Remember “killer bees”? scientifically known as the Africanized honey bee, is a hybrid created by crossing African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) with European honey bee subspecies like the Italian honey bee (A. m. ligustica). The hybrid, developed in Brazil, was intended to combine the European bees’ honey production with the African bees’ adaptability to warmer climates. However, the resulting hybrid also inherited a highly defensive and aggressive nature from the African bees. Source. That particular hybridization process didn’t really work out as intended.

When we use our technologies on animals, we should do so cautiously and thoughtfully. We must reflect on what these modifications mean for our relationship to animals and nature, and importantly, what this means in our relationship to God.

We are not the creator, He is the Creator. There’s no known process that can create brand-new genetic information. Natural selection and mutations don’t create new information—they work on information that already exists, writes Ken Ham.

Bless the LORD, my soul!
LORD my God, You are very great;
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
3He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks on the wings of the wind;
4He makes the winds His messengers,
Flaming fire His ministers.
Psalm 104:1-4

Further Resources

Is it Possible to Bring Back Extinct Animals?

A study reveals whether or not it’s possible to bring back extinct animals. Everything scientists currently know lead to one conclusion. In this Answers News broadcast, our hosts (Patricia Engler, Tim Chaffey, and Rob Webb) share their perspective on this subject as Bible believing Christians. 2:21-5:37. Answers in Genesis video

What should Christians think about artificial selection and genetic modification? Where are the ethical boundaries? Creation Ministries International

Posted in theology

Prata Potpourri: Staying ‘Resolute’, Easter planning, Forming Friendships in Christ, the Nicest Show on TV, Busy-ness; More

Posted on by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

The Answers for Women conference at Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter concluded. I’ve seen the photos and videos of the fellowship among the leaders, and I was much encouraged. I see the crowd of hungry women who traveled far to attend in order to receive great teaching, and I’m encouraged.

I see the crowd and I wonder if Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife, who is against women ‘learning theology’ and against women ‘teaching theology’ and against women being out in the world, would see this many women being taught by other women and would say “They are all wrong and I am right” and “Ken Ham is wrong and I am right”. I muse on the deception of sin and the spiritual harm of pride.

Stay teachable, ladies.

Lori Alexander could have written this book…

Most false teachers like Lori quote scripture, but so did the devil – and to Jesus’ face no less. Sin is so deceptive. Lori could have written this book… Meanwhile I encourage you to go to Answers in Genesis TV when the video sessions are posted and view them. The topic was staying Resolute for Christ, and many sessions taught about discernment and false movements that destroy.

Virgil Walker wrote an essay titled Don’t Mistake Activity for Obedience: Why the Kingdom Isn’t Built on Busyness.

I remember years ago, a woman who was busy at church. She was busy-busy. She was on many committees, volunteered for everything, was there every time the doors opened (this was back when we had 2 Sunday services and Wednesday night prayer meeting). She was working full time and a married mom of two, but was so busy her second job seemed like it was church. She got tired, complaining, and burned out. She later separated from her husband, divorced for no biblical reason, resisted counseling, avoided church discipline, and was eventually excommunicated. Not that busy-ness necessarily leads to apostasy, but sometimes busy-ness covers for a lack of spiritual core that true repentance gives a person when they are saved. Read Virgil’s piece…

I listened to the first session of Susan Heck’s conference at Crossway Bible Church in Kansas. The topic was Forming Faithful Friendships in Christ. Her first session focused on what it means for US to be friends with Jesus, a great first session. Mrs. Heck laid a solid foundation. The sessions, all 4 plus a Q&A, are at the church’s website. It is listed on the Sermons page, which over time the Friendship sessions will get squashed down, so you may have to scroll a bit if you are reading this months from now.

Forming Faithful Friendships in Christ by Susan Heck.

Tim Challies wrote about “The most pleasant show on television”. If you’re wondering, it’s All Creatures Great and Small, the modern reboot. Usually when I see ‘modern reboot’ it means crassness, wokeness, sexual immorality, and other pollutions. Not this time. I saw the original show in the 1970s when it first came out and I think this reboot is even better. I agree with Challies, it’s just plain nice.

Challies concludes his essay saying, “I hope the show’s success helps the studios understand that if they keep out the raunch, hold back the politics, and simply tell good stories in a compelling way, they’ll have an audience eager to watch.”

The Most Pleasant Show on Television

Owen Strachan said the same thing a few months ago with his essay, The Enchanted Realism of “All Creatures Great and Small” : An Essay on Television’s Best Show.

A few short weeks ago I recommended the CBS show Elsbeth. But this week, I became very disappointed. I love the show and Carrie Preston’s skill at bringing the character to life. The episode ‘Tiny Town’ was so good! However, the latest episode featured lesbian kissing, a throuple, homosexual kissing. AND emphasis on ‘no judgment’. One person in a polyamory ‘marriage’ had been suspected of killing another in the threesome. The police captain said he could not get his head around the notion of a threesome in marriage. “I get all I need from my one love, Claudia. Maybe people would actually be happy if they focused on one person.” That was the comment he felt he needed to apologize for, since it was “insensitive” according to the show’s script.

Sad. I do JUDGE. Tekel: You, Elsbeth, have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Christian friends, there may be little on TV we care to consume, but there ARE a few here and there that allow for safe viewing and a pleasurable media experience. I hope All Creatures stays the course.

Mrs. Sharon Lareau at Chapter 3 Ministries has a good essay about Worry Less About Which Bible Reading Plan to Use and More About Which Bible, and she explains the Bible translations. Occasionally I see people on Twitter/X discussing their choice of translation, or a chat about their decision to change translations. I started with the NKJV because that was the Bible a friend gave me. Then I used the ESV for years, until I changed to the NASB. I use NASB and Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) interchangeably. My pastor preaches from the ESV.

The translation does matter and we should make an informed decision about which translation we read and study from. Sharon makes a recommendation and then explains the basis for her choice.

Post-Its and Bible study go together like Mac & cheese. EPrata photo

Marci Ferrell / Thankful Homemaker has some good resources ahead of Easter. She writes,

Easter is almost here, and as Christian women, we want to make sure our celebration is focused on Jesus.⁣ In today’s video, I’m sharing simple, heartfelt, and practical ways to plan a Christ-centered Easter at home—without feeling overwhelmed.⁣
⁣
Whether you have little ones, teens, or an all-adult household, I pray this episode encourages you to reflect on the beauty of the resurrection and gives you tools to point your family to Christ in meaningful ways.⁣
⁣
💌 Download My Free Christ-Focused Easter Planning Guide⁣
Includes meal prep timelines, Holy Week Scripture readings, discussion questions, and simple celebration ideas.⁣
⁣
📺 Watch Marci’s Easter video on YouTube

⁣It’s the weekend here as I write this. Green leaves are budding, birds are singing, and I have the next week off for Spring Break from school. Time to go outside and enjoy God’s green creation.