Tag Archives: Evolution

Liberals, Evangelicals and the Bible

30 Replies

hath_god_said

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been following a discussion about creationism on James McGrath’s blog.  The discussion has been quite entertaining.  As an atheist who thinks the Bible is an errant, fallible book made up mostly of mythical stories, I find the arguments between Evangelical Christians and Liberal Christians about the nature of the Bible better than Saturday Night Live.

The recent discussion on McGrath’s blog is primarily between a young earth creationist named Tim, (yes THAT Tim who commented on this blog a few weeks ago and here too)  and McGrath and several other like-minded commenters.

While the discussion is primarily about science, there are a few comments about the Bible, salvation, and who owns the “real” Christian interpretation of the Bible.  McGrath, a liberal Christian, believes his interpretive tradition is the historic tradition of Christianity. Tim, however, believes his literalistic interpretation of the Bible is the historic position of Christianity.

Added to the entertainment is  Tim insisting on knowing the spiritual credentials of McGrath and other commenters.  Tim asked McGrath:

Have you ever come to know Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord?
Do you know Him and love Him today?
Do you believe what He says?

Standard Evangelical stuff.  McGrath did not answer Tim directly, pointed to other things he has written on his blog, and refused to give Tim what he wanted; a clear, concise, testimony of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Why is this important to Tim? Simple. Tim states:

One’s relationship with Jesus Christ has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion. One may be highly educated, yet not wise. For it is the fear of the LORD that is the beginning of wisdom.

According to Tim’s interpretation of the Bible, true wisdom, knowledge, and understanding comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In Tim’s mind. believing in evolution is a denial of the Word of God, and a denial of God himself.

The Evangelical believes the Bible as it is written. For the most part they are literalistic in their reading of the text.  This is why almost half of Americans believe God created the world, as is,  in the last  ten thousand years.  It is, after all, what the Bible says.

Evolutionary biology, geology,physics, astronomy, and archeology tell a very different story. We live in a universe that is billions of years old, a world where humans evolved over millions of years.  It is clear that modern science and creationism are incompatible and no matter how one tries, it is impossible to reconcile the two.

Liberal Christians like McGrath allow modern science to shape their understanding of the Bible. When science conflicts with the Bible, science wins.  The Evangelical, on the other hand, never lets science have the final say. When science conflicts with the Bible, the Bible wins.

Does this mean the liberal Christian has the upper hand? Not necessarily.  While the Evangelical is way too literal in his reading and interpretation of the Bible, the liberal Christian is far too willing to abandon anything that doesn’t fit their modern, scientific understanding of the world.

So, the Evangelical says, The Bible says_________________________ and the liberal Christian replies, that is poetry, allegory, or meant for a different culture or time.  Rarely does a liberal Christian explain how they come to their conclusions on a particular text. It seems they just explain away anything that doesn’t “fit.”

Here’s the problem I have with how liberal Christians read and interpret the Bible. If Genesis is poetry or allegory why not treat the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the same way? While modern science certainly discredits the Evangelical belief about Genesis, can we not say the same thing about the liberal Christian’s belief about who and what Jesus Christ was?

At the end of the day, every Christian is a literalist.  The question is, to what degree are they a literalist.  The Evangelical views most  of the Bible from a literalistic viewpoint, the liberal Christian only views small parts of the Bible as literal.

The  liberal Christian is quite willing to jettison most everything  in the Bible except their belief in Jesus.  Why is the story of Jesus special?

The liberal Christian will argue that modern science clearly shows that creationism is false.  Fine, I agree. But, modern science also shows us that virgins don’t get pregnant, the miracles ascribed to Jesus didn’t happen, and dead people don’t get back out of the grave.  Why does the liberal Christian willingly use science to discard creationism to the ancient relic dustbin but not Jesus himself?  Maybe Jesus was just an allegory or a metaphor? (and I am not a mythicist. I think Jesus was a real person who lived and died in Palestine during the early days of the first century.)

In most cases, I prefer talking about the Bible and theology with the Evangelical.  With the liberal Christian, discussing the Bible with them is often like nailing Jell-O to the wall.  They are a constantly moving target, ever-changing depending on changes in their understanding of the world.

Let me be clear, I think Evangelicalism is harmful mentally and emotionally. I think it teaches people a naïve way of looking at the world than often has tragic consequences. (especially when their beliefs enter the political arena)

In every way, the liberal Christian way of thinking is better for our world. I just wish they would go one step farther, and admit what many of us agnostics and atheist suspect is true; that liberal Christians are atheists/agnostics who like to go to church.

For Further Investigation

Tim’s Blog
James McGrath’s blog

It is Never About the Science

18 Replies

jesus_created

The Butler Staff and Faculty Ministry at Butler University plans to have Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis speak at an April 11th event.  James McGrath, a professor at Butler University, does not think Mortenson should be permitted to speak at Butler.

In a letter to the Butler Staff and Faculty Ministry McGrath wrote:

I would like to express my dismay that BSFM has chosen to invite a representative of an organization opposed to not only the mission of Butler University, but also the historic Christian faith and respect for the Bible, to our campus. Answers in Genesis promotes views which are at odds with both the scientific evidence and what the Bible says.

I have blogged more than once about Terry Mortenson’s previous visit to campus. Here is a link to one example.

I wonder what motivates the invitation of someone who represents an organization that brings the Christian faith into disrepute. Those who make false claims, and who maintain that the making of such claims is what it means to be a Christian, do only harm to the faith. That is what Answers in Genesis does. They persuade many people that they have to choose between what science concludes and Christianity, and in a self-fulfilling prophecy, many people who then discover the weight and extent of the scientific evidence then leave their faith.

Why not invite someone like Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian who headed up the Human Genome Project and who is now director of the NIH? Someone who actually knows about the relevant scientific information and can talk about it from a Christian perspective? Why not invite a Christian like John Walton who is also a Biblical scholar and can talk honestly and accurately about the creation accounts in Genesis? Why invite self-proclaimed experts without relevant expertise who deceive the gullible and drive people away from the faith?

I am very disappointed with BSFM. I am not sure who is responsible for the invitation, but I hope that you will forward my e-mail to them. I do not know whether there is any hope that the invitation extended to Answers in Genesis could be reconsidered, but it ought to be.

McGrath’s posting of his letter has elicited almost 300 comments on his blog.  Defenders of  Terry Mortenson, Answers in Genesis, and young earth creationism, quickly found out about McGrath’s post and left comments objecting to McGrath’s letter.

The discussion quickly turned to a creationism vs. evolution debate.  The debate went like these debates ALWAYS go…nowhere. While I totally agree with James McGrath on Butler University giving Mortenson a platform to spread the creationist religion (in the name of science), I do wonder why people like McGrath continue to engage creationists in discussions.

Several times I tried to point out that the issue was not one of science. My comments were ignored. I suspect McGrath enjoys talking about science like I enjoy talking about theology. It is easy to get involved in discussions that ultimately are a waste of time. The reason is simple.

McGrath and others wrongly assume that if they show the creationist the science that they will see the error of their way.  This wrong assumption results in long drawn out discussions about science and totally misses what the real issue is.

The real  issue is the Bible and the authority the Evangelical grants the Bible.  Evangelicals are literalists who believe the sixty-six books of the Christian Bible are the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.  According to the Evangelical, God spoke through human writers to write the Bible.  As such, the Bible is different from any other book ever written. It is a divine text, ultimately written by God himself.

When the Evangelical reads Genesis 1-3 they read it literally. The Bible is clear. God created the world in six days and this is how he did it.   The findings of modern science, and not so modern science, directly conflict with what the Bible says. What is the Evangelical to do? He will always reject the science. When he ceases to reject the science he ceases to be an Evangelical. (with rare exception)

So arguing with an Evangelical about matters of science is a waste of time.   The only matter for the Evangelical is what God said in his Word.  The Evangelicals sees the debate as one of authority. They reject the authority of science over the Bible and contend that evolutionary science is nothing more than a religion built upon faith assumptions.

I am of the opinion that the best way to reach an Evangelical is by embracing their viewpoint and then trying to poke holes in their interpretation of the Bible.  To reach the Evangelical, their belief that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God must be challenged and eroded. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, they must be brought to the place where they are willing to say, Yea hath God said?  Get an Evangelical to question the authority of the Bible and you have a good chance to change what he thinks is true.

I realize that scientists are not trained in theology and often have a poor understanding of church history.  As an atheist,  I am often embarrassed when some of the leading scientists wander off into discussions about theology, the Bible, and church history.  I wish they would leave the theological debates to those of us who have experience with Biblical issues.

I am no scientist and I have no problem deferring to people like Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, or Lawrence Krauss.  They have spent their entire lives studying science and I trust their expertise in their respective fields.  I just wish they would do the same when it comes to matters of theology.  Like the scientist, those of us who know the Bible and theology well, have given our entire lives to understanding these things.

And this is why scientists need to listen to us when it comes to creationism. The creationist will never be won over by scientific evidence.  It has NEVER been about the science. In McGrath’s case, his area of expertise is religion and philosophy. While not a trained scientist, he does have a good understanding of  science. (far superior to yours truly) I just wish, in the most recent discussion on his blog, McGrath would have attacked the foundation of the creationists, the Bible and their interpretations of the Bible, rather than engaging in a log, drawn out debate about science. (and numerous commenters did this)

When it comes to what creationists believe it is never about the science.

A Young Earth Creationist Admits His Circular Reasoning

10 Replies

circular_reasoning

Ken Cook, in a post titled, Science is Always False,  wrote:

I am a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I think that you should be too.

I am not a scientist. I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t come to my conclusion about the age of the earth because of science.

I am a Theologian. I don’t play one of TV, but radio, the internet and in person are fair game. I can define the Protoevangelium and many other theological terms without a second thought. I listen to worship songs before singing them, and can think of no better way to past the time than with a cigar, a beer and a group of men who want to talk theology.

I came to my conclusion about the age of the earth theologically. I came to my conclusion about the age of the earth without the input of things outside of the scriptures and I did so for several reasons.

  1. Science is always False. The Scientific Method is void of a solid philosophical defense when dealing with non-repeatable events like abiogenesis, and other such origin based questions.
  2. The assumption of uniformity is bunk.  (I will leave an expanded explanation of this for a later time.)
  3. I actually believe in Sola Scriptura.
  4. I think that the best person to tell us how we got here, is the person who got us here. ( A bit circular, I know… I am a presuppositional apologetist what do you expect? )

The question I have for you, dear reader, is what caused you to come to the conclusion about the age of the earth that you did?

Let Cook’s brilliant prose be a reminder of WHY it is almost always a waste of time to debate Evangelical Christians about  science. Their view is not rooted in science at all.  For the Evangelical, everything begins and ends with the Evangelical God and the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.  Anything that does not agree with their presuppositions is rejected.  This is the ultimate example of a closed mind, securely padlocked with a literalist understanding of the Bible.

Time for me to go buy some slaves, get me a few concubines, and kill everyone who doesn’t worship the Evangelical God. After all…it is in the Bible.

Ken Ham Warns Atheists Out to Steal Children and Eat Them too

21 Replies

world_hold_on_children

Eat them, metaphorically speaking. Smile

In a recent blog post,  young earth creationist, and snake oil salesman, Ken Ham wrote:

… Christians today are hungry to be equipped with the resources to fight the battle before us in this increasingly secular culture, where God’s Word is being attacked on nearly every front.

I love teaching children. Once again, as we’ve seen across the country at similar conferences, we were able to reach hundreds of children and young people who attended the special school assembly programs in Florida.

I want to remind you that our theme at AiG for the next two years is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids” as we focus on rescuing them from this present evil age.

Recently, I coauthored an article for the AiG website about Arizona State University Professor Lawrence Krauss. He has now posted videos accusing Christians who teach their children about creation of committing “child abuse.” He even accuses those who teach their children about hell of committing “child abuse.”

Lawrence Krauss is an atheist, and he is an atheist on a mission right now to capture your kids for the anti-God religion of atheism. Think about it—he wants you to hand your kids over to him so he can try to brainwash children into believing they are just animals and that they are not made in the image of God. He wants them to be taught when you die, you rot—and that’s it! In essence, he wants your kids to be captured for the devil.

You know, I often think about why people such as Krauss are so aggressive in preaching their anti-God message of meaninglessness, purposelessness, and hopelessness. We we know that in Romans 1 we are told such people know that God is real, so they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” And it’s even more than that. They want the focus on them—it is a self-centeredness. They want you to think they are a god! They have succumbed to the devil’s temptation in Genesis 3:5—they want to be like God—they want to be a god!

Such God-haters like Lawrence Krauss and others usually go ballistic when they hear of AiG teaching kids about Genesis. And they just hate me teaching children the truth about science, origins, and how to think correctly about such matters.

This past Monday in Florida, I taught young children for an hour and a half, covering topics like dinosaurs, fossils, the Flood, creation, evolution, the gospel and much more. I showed them how the history recorded in the Bible explains dinosaurs and that observational science confirms the Bible’s history. Secularists hate me teaching children to think correctly about origins as I help them understand what God taught Job in Job 38:4. God asked Job if he was there when God made the earth. But of course, he wasn’t—and that’s the point. When it comes to origins, no human was there to see the earth come into existence! But God has always been there. Evolutionists were not there to see the supposed millions of years of evolution. So I love to teach the kids to ask the question, “Were you there?” when someone talks about millions of years. The kids get it! The atheists don’t want to get it because they don’t want to give up the starting point for their worldview—i.e., that fallible man determines truth.

I taught the high school students how to understand science in relation to the origins issue by showing them the difference between beliefs about the past and knowledge gained by observation, which enables us to build technology.

Recently, Dr. Krauss made the false statement that evolution is the basis of biology and the basis of technology. Absurd nonsense! I made sure I taught the students how to think correctly about such issues. Then I gave them answers to many of the questions skeptics will use to try to make them doubt God’s Word—questions like these: Who made God? How did Noah fit the animals on the Ark? Isn’t natural selection evolution? What about Carbon dating?…

Evangelicals like Ham love a good conspiracy theory.  They believe we are living in the last days and Jesus could come again at any moment. (Ham hopes Jesus doesn’t come before he gets his Ark Park built) They also believe  the world will become increasingly more sinful the closer we get to the return of Jesus.

Evangelicals like Ham believe they are called by God to stand against Satan and his lies.  In their eyes, secularism, atheism, humanism, evolution,and acceptance of homosexuality are Satanic lies that must be exposed and defeated.

Ham is right about one thing; America is becoming more secular. He is also right that the battle for the future of America will be fought in our public schools and universities. Make no mistake about it, secularists, humanists, and atheists, believe the kind of Christianity Ham peddles is intellectually harmful and retards the thinking of young people.

And so we fight. No longer do secularists, humanists, and atheists hide in the shadows, fearing the wrath of Christian America. We can sense the tide is turning and so does Ken Ham.

Secularists, humanists, and atheists use reason and fact to show  young people a better way. They show there is no need to appeal to myth or religious superstition. Science is revealing a universe to us that is amazing and wondrous, but it is also showing that the religious explanations of the past 1800 years no longer explain the universe as we know it.

Ham does his best to disparage secularists, humanists, and atheists. According to Ham:

  • We preach a message of hopelessness
  • We preach a message of meaninglessness
  • We preach a message of purposelessness
  • We know God exists but suppress it
  • We are self-centered, it is all about us.

Only with his last point does Ham get it right. Secularists, humanists, and atheists plead guilty to being human-centered. (though that is not the ONLY focus we have)  We know focusing on prayer, God, or pronouncements from ancient religious texts will do little to improve the world we live in. In fact, such things might actually make our world  a worse place  to live in. (since many  wars are religiously motivated and many people deny global climate change for religious reasons)

Ham and his devoted disciples are infuriated that people like Lawrence Krauss say  teaching children creationism is child abuse. However, let’s consider for a moment whether Krauss’s claim is true.

If creationism is a religious fiction then teaching children it is true is a lie. From the time they can walk and talk, Evangelical Christian children are taught all sorts of lies from the Bible. How can this not have a negative effect on children?

Teaching children the earth is 6,000 years old, that God killed with a flood every human being save eight a few thousand years ago, and that anyone who does not accept the Evangelical version of the Christian God will be tortured by the Evangelical God in hell for eternity, is quite harmful to the intellectual development of children.

The waiting rooms of mental health professionals are filled with people who have had their sense of self-worth damaged or destroyed by Christian teachings like original sin. Being told you are wicked, that you can be oppressed or possessed by Satan, and that God holds absolute power of your life, does not make for a healthy mind,

So, to Ken Ham, I say this: Yes we are coming for your children.  We hope to expose them to the wide, wondrous universe we live in. We hope to teach them to think critically and not to accept something as fact just because a preacher said, God said __________________.

I am not anti-Christian or anti-religion. I am, however, anti-ignorance. I think parents hurt their children when they keep them from ALL the knowledge available about the universe and their place in it.

Did We Evolve From Monkeys?

3 Replies

If you were raised in the Evangelical church you were likely told evolutionists believe humans evolved from monkeys.  And, if you grew up, thought for yourself, and read just one non-Christian book on evolution, you found out this is NOT what the theory of evolution states.

It’s Sunday. In honor of the millions of American Christians that went to churches today that think evolutionists believe humans evolved from monkeys, I give you the follow songs. Enjoy!

Video Link

I’m no kin to the monkey no no no,
The monkey’s no kin to me yeah yeah yeah,
I don’t know much about his ancestors,
But mine didn’t swing from a tree.

It seems so unbelievable,
And yet they say that it’s true,
They’re teaching us about it in school now,
That humans were monkeys once too.

Oooo I’m no kin to the monkey no no no,
The monkey’s no kin to me yeah yeah yeah,
I don’t know much about his ancestors,
But mine didn’t swing from a tree.

Although it’s so ridiculous,
They’re teaching us now that it’s true,
The teachers that came from a monkey,
Would be better off in a zoo.

Oooo I’m no kin to the monkey no no no,
The monkey’s no kin to me yeah yeah yeah,
I don’t know much about his ancestors,
But mine didn’t swing from a tree.

It seems so much more believable,
And surely, surely it’s true,
That God made Man in His image,
No monkey story will do.

Oooo I’m no kin to the monkey no no no,
The monkey’s no kin to me yeah yeah yeah,
I don’t know much about his ancestors,
But mine didn’t swing from a tree,

This monkey business has to go,
Because it just isn’t true,
It’s such a disgrace to the monkey,
A disgrace to the human race too.

Oooo I’m no kin to the monkey no no no,
The monkey’s no kin to me yeah yeah yeah,
I don’t know much about his ancestors,
But mine didn’t swing from a tree,
Mine didn’t swing from a tree,
Mine didn’t swing from a tree.

Video Link

Darwin first did the imminent service of arousing attention to the
Probability of all change in organic, as well as in the inorganic world,
Being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition
For all life is a continuum. All living things despite their awesome diversity
Are related to each other. And evolution is the term we give to that
Process, by which the structure of plants and animals changes with the
Passage of time thus accounting for the continuum
I was staring through the blackboard trying to keep from sleeping,
Doing my very best to hear the subject they were teaching.
When to my surprise, I couldn’t my believe my ears,
This is what you looked like back a million years
Your uncle was a monkey, he was swinging through the trees,
He lived on green bananas, and his arms swung to his knees
He spoke with such conviction, it really made me think,
Maybe my teacher, He’s the missing link!

He said…

I believe in evolution,
Ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies.
It’s the only possible solution,
Big Bang fiction, that we factualize

Therefore Crow Magnum Man!
It takes a lot of faith to say we’re accidents of nature,
But I believe we are the work of a loving creator
Now you can wait a million years and hope that nature does it’s part,
But it only takes a moment, for God to change a heart

That’s why…

I believe in evolution,
Changing of the heart, renewing of the mind.
It’s the only true solution,
God is always working, changing lives (changing lives),
It’s evolution redefined

I used to trust in natural selection,
My survival was all I could see.
My evolving to perfection,
Started when God rescued me

I believe in evolution,
Changing of the heart, renewing of the mind.
It’s the only true solution, God is always working,
Changing lives.
I believe in evolution,
Changing of the heart, renewing of the mind
It’s the only true solution,
It’s evolution redefined
I believe in evolution,
Changing of the heart, renewing of the mind
It’s the only true solution, God is always working,
Changing lives.

I believe believe in evolution,
Changing of the heart, renewing of the mind,
It’s the only true solution, It’s evolution redefined

How I Answered Science Questions

8 Replies

creationist_science_fair

I will readily admit that I know very little about science. As a high school student, I took general science in ninth grade and biology in tenth grade. In college I took  a biology class that had no labs, and was, for the most part, a complete was of time.  That’s it.

Since leaving the Christian faith, I have worked very hard becoming  literate in science. I recently finished reading  The Sun’s Heartbeat by Bob Berman, a fascinating book about the sun and how it affects the world we live in. I am currently reading Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True. I have a dozen science books sitting on the shelf waiting to be read.  So many books, so little time.

For most of my life, science didn’t matter to me. My life greatly benefited from the technological advances science has given us, but when it came to how I thought about the universe and my place in it, science had nothing to offer me.

I believed evolution was a Satanic lie even though I never read one book about evolution.  I  thought evolutionists believed humans came from monkeys and I mocked and laughed at scientists who thought such a thing.  They were ignorant monkeys for even thinking such a thing. Didn’t they know what the Bible says? Everything produces after its own kind.  Silly over-educated fools, Monkeys can’t produce humans.

The Bible was the only science book I needed. Genesis 1-3 were the written record of how God created everything a little over 6,000 years ago. On my  library shelf sat books by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, books like The Genesis Flood. These books reinforced my belief that what the Bible said in Genesis 1-3 was literally true.

creationist_carnival

Over the course of twenty-five years, I pastored churches in Ohio, Texas and Michigan. For the most part, the people I pastored were blue-collar, working class people. While some of them had college degrees, not one of them had a science degree. Most of the colleges graduates I pastored were school teachers, pastors, or nurses. For the most part, they had no more training in the sciences than I did.

I believed the Bible was the inspired, inerrant Word of God. For many years, I believed the King James Bible was the ONLY Bible for English-speaking people. The people I pastored had the same view of the Bible as I did. While there may have been disagreements about this or that doctrine, the authority of the Bible was never questioned.

It is for this reason that questions about science in general, and evolution in particular, rarely came up.  From the pulpit, I ridiculed those who did not accept the Bible as the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. To not accept that God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days six thousand years ago was tantamount to a declaration of war against God.

The explanations for the universe given by science were dismissed out of hand. Why?  God  said ___________________.  This was the final answer to every question. I knew that evolution and the creation account found in Genesis 1-3 were diametrically opposed to one another.  (and I still think attempts to wed the two are exercises in futility)  My presuppositions, God is and the Bible is true, stopped any contrary data dead its tracks.

When confronted with science thinking the earth is billions of years old, I dismissed it by saying God created the world with an appearance of age and that God was testing humans; would they be true to what the Bible said rather than accepting was a scientific test “seemed” to say?

I was a defender of young earth creationism. Back in the day, Ken Ham and I would have been best friends. I probably would have encouraged church members to read his books and I have no doubt I would have taken a bus load of church members to visit the Creation Museum.

When church teenagers took high school biology, I encouraged them to write papers on creationism. (this harkens back to the day when I would answer biology test questions correctly and then write below my answer what the Bible said)  On a few occasions, I confronted high school biology teachers over their teaching church children evolution. In retrospect, I have no doubt they thought I was a raving lunatic, a Bible thumper with no understanding of science.

creationism_classroom

One humorous moment occurred in the late 1990’s when I was having severe abdominal pain. I went to see my doctor, a rheumatologist, who was treating me for Fibromyalgia. He told me my pain was from nerves that ran through the abdomen area. The doctor, the son of a Presbyterian minster said, whoever designed the nerves sure didn’t do a very good job. And then he chuckled. (he knew I was a Baptist pastor)  I said nothing, but I wondered if I should continue going to a doctor who thought God did a bad job of creating the human body!

For five years, one church I pastored, operated a Christian school. We taught young earth creationism and pretty much ignored all other aspects of science. Polly and I homeschooled our six children when they weren’t attending a Christian school. None of our children received any science training beyond what could be found in creationist-oriented books from Bob Jones University  Press, A Beka Books, and Rod and Staff Publishers.

I hope this post has satisfactorily answered the question about how I answered science questions as a pastor. You might be wondering how my staunch young earth creationist beliefs affected my children when they went to college. The good news is we taught our children to read well. Everyone of our children, except our daughter with Down Syndrome, are exceptional readers. Several of them  tested out at a high school reading level while still in elementary school. Their ability to read well, often much better than their public school counterparts, served them well when taking college-level science classes.

Now that my children are free from Evangelical Bible literalism, I have high hopes that one of my grandchildren will some day become a scientist.  (my hope is tempered by the fact that there a few closeted creationists who teach at local high schools and the local community college) Polly and I try to buy our grandchildren Christmas gifts that foster curiosity.  We hope that their curiosity will turn into a love for science.  Sitting on my bookshelf is Richard Dawkins’  children’s book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What is Really True.  I bought this in the hope that someday my young grandchildren will read the book and gain a better understanding of the natural world.

The Rise and Fall of the Ken Ham Empire

10 Replies

ken_ham_cartoon

Ken Ham, a Christian Fundamentalist, promotes young earth creationism through Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. He is revered by many Christian Fundamentalists and roundly  ridiculed by scientists.

Slate published a feature article today that calls into question the future of the Ham Empire.  Mark Joseph Sterns writes:

…And that’s pretty much all Ham has. Blind faith in the Bible is superior to belief in evolution, because the former was written by God, while the latter is a myth perpetuated by sinful atheists. Science is a myth simply because it cannot be allowed to contradict the Bible. That’s Ham’s starting and ending point, his premise and his conclusion. Such unquestioning trust and circular logic pervades the pages of the book, presented with smug satisfaction.

Yet creationism isn’t really the core of The Lie. Culture is—specifically, secular humanism. Ham’s bugaboos (“abortion, pornography, gay marriage, lawlessness”) are, to his mind, rooted in belief in evolution. Developments like legalized pornography are mere symptoms of acceptance of science; in order to purge them, we must destroy belief in evolution altogether. This is because evolution is “man’s word” (as opposed to God’s word), and once we accept man’s word, we will lose literally all sense of morality. Unsurprisingly, same-sex marriage is particularly anathema to Ham. (The word homosexual appears 24 times in the book, as compared with a mere 13 uses of creationism.) He spills much ink fixating on the sinfulness, unleashed by belief in evolution, of “the homosexual lifestyle” and “homosexual sodomy.”

Inevitably, Ham also turns to the shameless claims that acceptance of evolution is directly responsible for a parade of horrors: the Holocaust, racism, drug overdoses, and even “male chauvinism.” (Many use evolution “to justify that females are inferior,” Ham contends, though this belief is obviously incorrect; according to the Bible, men and women simply have “different roles,” in part because of “their reactions to the temptation of the serpent.”) The moral relativism inherent to evolution directly spawned each of these evils. Hitler’s murder of Jews “may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution.” Racism “increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Drug use flows naturally from denying “the truth … of Genesis.” In Dinosaurs of Eden, Ham threatens children with an afterlife in hell; in The Lie, Ham threatens adults with a living hell. Believe me, he warns, or face damnation, both temporal and eternal.

But there’s trouble in Ham’s creationist paradise….

…In 2012, the Creation Museum reported a 10 percent decline in attendance from the previous year, and its parent group, Answers in Genesis, posted a 5 percent drop in revenue. That continues a four-year slump and a new low for the museum at 280,000 total visitors last year. Even more ominously, fundraising for the Ark Encounter has slowed to a crawl. Its future is further imperiled by the decline of the Creation Museum, whose visitors were expected to be a huge source of funding for the ark park. As of January, Ham had failed to raise even half the money required to build the ark replica itself, let alone the rest of the park. To help out, you can buy a peg, a blank, or even a beam for $100, $500, and $1,500, respectively—but seeing as the fate of the ark is in serious jeopardy, is a free pass to the grand opening really worth the risk?

Here’s to a continued decline in attendance at the Creation Museum.  Thanks to Barbara at Great Lakes Atheists Meetup for pointing out to me the Slate article.

Same Evidence, Different Conclusion, a Young Earth Creationist Said

30 Replies

science_vs_creationism

A Christian left a pro-creationist comment on my post about the Church of the Nazarene and evolution. I am quite curious about Christians who comment on my blog so I cyber-stalked the commenter a bit. I found his blog,  but I won’t share this since it required me knowing his email address and that is private information.

My post was added to the Christianity Reddit and it has provoked a bit of discussion among the faithful. I noticed the man who commented here also commented on Reddit. So…I clicked his Reddit handle and found out that Young Earth Creationism a hobby horse of his. Here is one comment of his I found quite interesting and revealing:

You’ve kinda jumped all over the place in your question. First you talked about YEC which is an origins topic, then resurrection, then questioning the Bible. I’m going to stick to the YEC issue, since that is your main topic I believe…

I have been studying creationism and evolution for the past two years. I have participated in countless debates and had my knowledge expanded on both sides of the issue. I feel I have finally come to the core of the issue and have formulated my comprehensive argument in favor of young-earth, Biblical creation.

Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence (same bones, same rocks, same earth), but come to different conclusions due to different starting assumptions used to explain the evidence.

Evolutionists have a starting assumption of uniformitarianism of geology and biology. This basically means that the rates and processes we measure today have remained constant and unchanged for all of history.

Creationists have a starting assumption of catastrophism. This basically means that if the Bible is true, then there are three very important events (a 6-day literal creation, a cursed world following original sin, and a worldwide flood) that intrude and disrupt the assumption of uniformitarianism.

Therefore, if the Bible is true – uniformitarianism fails, and so do all conclusions (macro-evolution, old-earth) that flow from that assumption.

Realize this is not a denial of the scientific method. This is a re-interpretation of the same data. A person who truly believes the Bible is true has no reason to accept evolution or an old-earth because the Bible offers a different history than those theories use. For evolutionists: yes, this argument hinges on the assumption that the Bible’s catastrophic events actually happened – BUT your conclusions also hinge on an unobserved, unrepeatable assumption: uniformitarianism.

The takeaway here is that the “overwhelming evidences” for evolution, old-earth, and slow geologic processes are interpretations built on assumptions. Creationists have their own interpretations built on different assumptions. This is not a battle over intellect. It is a battle over whether the Bible is true. The evidence can’t tell us either way. A common misconception is that creationists reject micro-evolution and natural selection. Not at all, those are actual observed occurrences. We only reject the unseen lengths to which these changes can accumulate.

Forget the science for a moment. The commenter states:

Creationists have a starting assumption of catastrophism.

A scientist I am not, but a theologian I am, and I know this, NO Christian Creationist starts with catastrophism.  They start with:

  • The Christian God is the one, only, true and Living God
  • The Bible  is God’s revelation to man and is divinely inspired. It is inerrant and true in all it addresses. (and in everything Christians assume it says based on their own interpretations)

Since these presuppositions are true, Genesis 1-3 is how the universe was created. The commenter rightly states, “it is a battle over whether the Bible is true” and that is why many of us are atheists. We have concluded it is not, and it is not a book that should be relied on for scientific or historical facts, nor should it be a book trusted to give sound moral or ethical advice. While I would not say the Bible is worthless, I would say it has little to offer us in this modern, scientific age.

I will leave the commenter’s science assertions to the scientists who frequent this blog . Maybe one  will answer his comment.

An excellent read on this subject is the Canadian Atheist’s guest post, What is Science and Why it is Important.

Is Jesus Lord of Your Intellect?

13 Replies

calvin_hobbes_ignorance

Or to put it another way, do you parse every thought you have through the inspired, inerrant  Word of God?

Martyn Lloyd Jones, a 20th century Reformed pastor, who is quite popular among Fundamentalist Reformed Christians, had this to say on the matter:

‎”My thinking, if I believe that Jesus is the Lord, must be governed entirely by the Bible. In other words, I am not governed by modern thought. If I am governed by that, then Jesus is not the Lord of my intellect. So I cannot be governed by modern thought or by recent knowledge or by the latest discoveries of science. The moment I begin to be governed by those things, then Jesus is no longer Lord to me. I am putting myself in a superior position. I am making myself the lord.”

It should come as no surprise that Lloyd Jones rejected evolution. In his book, What is an Evangelical? , Lloyd Jones wrote:

‘We accept the biblical teaching with regard to creation and do not base our position upon theories of evolution, whichever particular theory people may choose to advocate. We must assert that we believe in the being of one first man called Adam, and one first woman called Eve. We reject the notion of pre-Adamic man because it is contrary to the teaching of the Scripture.

‘Now someone may ask, “Why do you care about this? Is this essential to your doctrine of salvation? Are you not falling into the very error of over-particularization against which you warned us at the beginning?” I suggest that I am not, and for these reasons. If we say that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, we must say that about the whole of the Bible, and when the Bible presents itself to us as history, we must accept it as history. I would contend that the early chapters of Genesis, the first three chapters of Genesis, are given to us as history. We know that there are pictures and symbols in the Bible, and when the Bible uses symbol and parable it indicates that it is doing so, but when it presents something to us in the form of history, it requires us to accept it as history.

‘We must therefore hold to the vital principle, to which I have referred earlier, of the wholeness and the close interrelationship of every part of the biblical message. The Bible does not merely make statements about salvation. It is a complete whole: it tells you about the origin of the world and of man; it tells you what has happened to him, how he fell and the need of salvation arose, it then tells how God provided this salvation and how He began to reveal it in parts and portions. Nothing is so amazing about the Bible as its wholeness, the perfect interrelationship of all the parts.’

HT: Denise at Surphside