Dr. David Tee, World Renowned Denier of Science, Observations, October 24, 2024.
On the back of the book (Stephen Hawkings — The Origin of Everything), and we are quoting from memory, the book said that scientists have finally got to the point where they understand and know where are origins began. Or something close to that.
As we read those few lines, the first thought was, what a waste of time. The secular scientists still have no clue about our origins because they omit the truth concerning that topic. They have yet to verify that our origins were by natural means.
They come up with different theories but not one of those theories puts the biblical supernatural creative act in jeopardy. The second thought we had and another reason we consider the book and the secular scientific work a waste of time is that God already explained our origins.
The scientists exploring and pursuing an alternative to the Biblical creation act simply wasted their intelligence, time, and money. They have spent years and valuable resources pursuing a topic that has already been answered
That is a waste considering the millions of people who could have benefitted from a wiser use of those three elements. But is the secular world for you. They would rather waste precious time, money, and intelligence pursuing a false idea than humble themselves and accept the truth.
….
As we have said for years, unbelievers always take the wrong paths, in the wrong directions and look in the wrong places for the wrong answers. They never learn or refuse to learn when the truth is presented to them.
Unbelieving scientists need our prayers so that the truth is revealed to them and their eyes are opened once and for all. Those prayers need to include all those Christian scientists and students who listen to the unbelievers and follow their counsel and not God’s
….
Throughout the world Christians can see the difference between the unbelieving world and the believing world. When they do recognize this difference, they will understand why God said to not follow or listen to unbelievers.
Unbelievers do not have the truth and many do not want it. We have read on many occasions where unbelieving scientists say that even if the Bible is proven true, they would not accept it. That is a sad state to be in and shows Christians we still have a lot of work left to do.
The unbelieving world uses its immoral standards and self-righteous attitudes to attack Christians, not realizing how bad off they are. They are merely pawns being used to harm unwary Christians
….
The right information does not come from unbelievers.
It comes from God and the Bible. Learn the truth and teach your children the truth before they come under attack from unbelieving teachers and professors. Giving them the right information is protecting your children.
Thiessen is not a scientist, and, as far as I know, has no science training apart from what he was taught in Bible college. He is no more qualified to opine on evolution than I am physics. That’s not to say that Thiessen doesn’t know anything about science. He knows enough to make it seem to uneducated Evangelicals that he is some sort of authority figure. This is common in Evangelical churches where preachers are viewed as authority figures in areas in which they have no relevant expertise.
What follows are excerpts from Thiessen’s latest posts. Laugh, ridicule, or weep, but never forget that scores of people agree with Thiessen, even if they might disagree with his ham-fisted approach.
There is only one single view that all Christians must accept and hold to. That view is the creation act revealed in Genesis 1. Every other viewpoint that alters or disagrees with this one biblical revelation is false teaching.
….
Evolutionary scientists make a lot of assumptions. The reason for this is . . . they cannot replicate claims made about ‘historical evolution’. It is an impossibility as they have no way of developing partial samples to experiment with.
This failure is another piece of evidence showing that evolution is not true. We do not have to worry about scientifically replicating any results of god’s creative act as it is done on an hourly basis every day.
….
No, other approaches do make scientific sense if science would be more open-minded about our origins. Science cannot study the one-time act nor replicate it. But it can prove that all life goes as stated in Genesis 1. That means God’s creative act makes scientific sense.
….
The truth never changes which is why Christian colleges, etc., need to stand with God and the Bible. Neither has changed over the thousands of years this world has existed. Evolution is whatever the evolutionist wants it to be no matter who it hurts.
….
There is no scientific evidence for any alternative to Genesis 1. All scientific evidence for those alternatives is manipulated to show support and read into any experiment they make. Plus, science has not discovered or tested one mechanism they say is involved in evolutionary human development.
….
To many unbelievers and unbelieving scientists, scientific media outlets and organizations evolution is dogma and settled science, not a theory. Evolution should never be taught in any school except to show why it is wrong and never existed. It is a theory that should never be considered for anything else.
….
It [the Bible] also tells us how God created. There is no room for any other theory to explain our origins. We know everything about our origins as the Bible reveals this creative act correctly. The opinion of Mr. Wright is one that is used to justify denying what God wrote about himself and says that God is incapable of writing about himself and his actions.
….
Any form of evolution is not true, it is not honorable, especially towards God, and it is not right or pure. Plus, evolution is not lovely or commendable as it caused great harm to millions throughout history and today, and it is not in any way shape, or form excellent or worthy of praise.
Evolution is nothing but a deceptive lie that has no place in any part of Christianity or its academic institutions. One cannot take science over God as the former is not the ultimate authority over anything.
Science, like many tools, is used to destroy people and Christians need to be aware of it before jumping on board scientific research. Christians can not teach other Christians to accept science over God’s word. If they do, they are leading those students to sin against God. That is very wrong.
If you don’t teach creation [ism] as true, then why teach the Bible at all? Or another good question why claim you are a Christian if you think the Bible is in error?
….
Good exegesis does require that everyone accept God’s word and does not hint at him being a liar. There is no evidence in scripture or nature that a process was involved in the origin of everything.
….
The very first biblical verse [Genesis 1:1] does not imply a process. Neither do the words ‘Let there be’ Every step of the creative act supports a supernatural creative act leaving no room for processes.
….
First, there is no evidence supporting evolution. To get evidence, scientists would have to produce the original conditions and let life take its course. With no intelligent being involved in the origination or development of life, scientists cannot be a part of any evolutionary experiment.
Then their ‘experimental’ set-up would have to produce the same results as scientists claim took place in their version of human history. If millions of years are needed for this production of verifiable evidence, then evolution is not true. One does not have evidence to support their extraordinary claims.
….
While the information about the fossilization of life forms is true, evolutionists will ignore this fact and claim the fossil record supports evolution. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, everything about evolution is read into fossils not taken out of it.
Fossils do not support an evolutionary process. They are pawns in a high-stakes game that evil uses to deceive people.
….
If Christian colleges are not pursuing truth but academic freedom, then the truth is lost and Christians are not getting the right spiritual food to grow strong and maintain their faith. You get what we have today, false teachers teaching false doctrine to vulnerable people. That is not a recipe for success.
After browsing the science books placed on the tables [at a book fair], we came to the conclusion that we do not need to read unbelieving science books anymore.
There are good reasons for following that realization. First, all the authors are telling the same story. They all do not depart from the main evolutionary claims or themes. Thus, they are boring to read. We figure they are writing these works to avoid the perish part of the academic publish-or-perish mentality.
Second, they offer no new evidence especially any that would be considered groundbreaking or history-changing. No new ‘physical evidence’ has been discovered or reported from the evolutionary side of the creation debate.
Anything they would present would be preceded or followed by the words ‘We Think’, ‘We Believe’. ‘it is possible’, ‘we do not know’, and similar phrases all evolutionary scientists cover their theories with. The last one is the most telling as it openly tells everyone they cannot find an alternative to God’s creative act.
Their evolutionary theories, etc., are merely wishful thinking and a waste of everyone’s time. Third, those first two points add up to the fact that it would be a giant waste of time reading those books.
They are nothing but false teaching and no Christian should be reading them unless they are looking for data and points to refute as well as show students why evolution and the Big Bang are wrong. These books provide no other type of valuable information.
Save your money or use it to buy solid, good Christian books written by true Christian scientists who believe in a 6 24-hour day creation. Remember, unbelievers do not have the truth and that includes all research fields under the science umbrella.
Every alternative to God’s creative act found in the Bible is false and untrue. Find Christian works that support Genesis 1 and 2 and learn the truth about our origins. Learn to strengthen your faith, not undermine it by accepting and adopting false information written by deceived people who are far from the truth.
Only God was there when creation took place and scientists cannot see back in time. It is laughable to think that evidence would survive billions and millions of years untouched by anything else.
— End excerpts
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Over the years, we [I] have written more than enough articles proving that the theory of evolution is not true.
….
Evolution is what anyone decides it to be and then changes the physical evidence to fit their particular version.
….
The Bible has the theory of evolution beat no matter how you look at this issue.
Geoff Toscano, a long-time reader of this blog and a personal friend replied:
Oh brother, I’ve wasted at least 5 minutes of my life reading Tee’s article! Just when I thought the fool couldn’t get any more stupid, he proves me wrong, once again! The irony is that he accuses evolutionary scientists of creating fairy stories along the lines of Hansel and Gretel, when it’s actually a book of fairy tales that he seeks to defend.
He misses the most basic understanding of why evolution must be true, and that is its explanatory power. Take away all the evidence we have in terms of DNA, the fossil record, variation, adaptation, and so on, and still we have the explanatory power. Evolution provides an explanation of features we observe in every life form that special creation cannot begin to approach. It explains biodiversity, vestiges and atavisms, bad design (if god designed humans then he did a terrible job!), and especially the manner in which life forms seem strangely to conform to their varying environments. An educated person cannot deny evolution: they are mutually exclusive.
Thiessen refuses to comment on this blog, choosing instead to “answer” comments on his site. Of course, Thiessen refuses to let people comment on his blog, nor does he have a contact page. You can, however, email Thiessen at kinship29@yahoo.com.
Titled Responding to Comments 4, Theissen “answered” five comments from this site. He had this to say to Geoff:
The person missing the point is the quoted commentator. Explanatory power means absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.
Also, explanatory power is not exclusive to evolution. Any alternative can have the same explanations credited to it. In fact, creation has the exact same explanatory power with one exception. Creation has all the evidence supporting it.
Like the late George Carlin, the commentator is judging God from only seeing humans and creation from the results of the fall and corruption that entered in at Adam’s sin. he did not and cannot see humans and creation as God created it.
God did a perfect job, but sin and corruption ruined what he did. The quoted commentator should blame evil not God. He also says that creatures adapt to different environments.
We have yet to see humans adapt to living underwater and fish to living out of water. Those are different environments. Moving to a different place on the dry surface of the Earth is not moving to a different environment.
It is simply moving to different weather patterns and temperatures. Nothing needs to change for adaptation to take place in that situation. Also, we have not seen one person adapt to the environment on the moon or in space. They still need protective gear to live.
This fact proves evolution false.
Geoff sent me a response to Thiessen that follows below. Geoff responds to Thiessen’s reply to him and several other commenters.
David Tee’s first comment makes no sense. I pointed out the explanatory power of evolution, and he countered with “There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.” He either didn’t read my comment properly or he didn’t understand it. Explanatory power IS the evidence so his reference to other evidence for evolution being made up is irrelevant. For example, the laryngeal nerve is explained perfectly by evolution, but makes no sense in his creation beliefs. That is the evidence, end of story.
As for his nonsense about humans adapting to living under water, he gets to be equally silly. Animals adapt to their environment, humans included. Life originated in the sea, then slowly started to move out of it onto dry land many millions of years, perhaps billions, of years ago. Animals that emerged evolved until they were able to live on the land without recourse to water. This explains why humans still have vestiges of gills (tail bones also, I might add). He’s also ridiculous in saying that different parts of dry land on Earth do not represent different environments. Really? Arctic versus the Sahara Desert? They aren’t just different weather patterns or temperatures, they require adaptation in a way almost as great as leaving the sea.
His point about not adapting to living in space or on the moon? (Ignoring that we’ve been able to access space for only a very few decades, whilst evolution requires thousands of years to make significant differences on the scale required). He really knows nothing about evolution. In fact, this comment is perhaps the most stupid I have ever seen from a creationist! It’s precisely because we haven’t adapted to such hostile conditions that we are unable to live in them! Should we be forced through circumstances one day to live on the moon then our bodies would adapt to the conditions, especially the gravity, but it’s unlikely we would ever be able to adapt to the lack of oxygen, which is essential for human existence, indeed all life (there are apparently tiny multi cells that exist without oxygen in parts of the ocean, but these aren’t relevant to Tee’s point). Plus, of course, we’d need water. There are technical ways of producing these but then we’d be adapting the environment to us. We can do this because we’ve evolved to be able to do it!
He says there are thousands of Christian biologists who reject evolution. False, there are almost none. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute is the only seemingly qualified scientist who makes the claim and he’s not a biologist. Michael Behe, who really formalised Intelligent Design, has since retreated and I think has either reverted to accepting evolution or at least gone very quiet. The thing is there are always outliers. People who are anti-vaxxers, or moon landing deniers, flat earthers, and many others can appear to be carrying some kind of qualification to lend them credibility. Even so, they remain outliers. They aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community, not because the scientific community is conspiring against them, but because the scientific community exists only because it is historically the only method whereby humanity progresses. Science works (and I define science widely in this regard, to include all methods of reasoning), where faith does not. Faith recently murdered a small child in Australia, a child who had every right to depend on her parents and other guardians for protection, but who was betrayed because her protectors thought the power of God was greater than the power of medicine.
Tee claims that unbelievers seek to exclude God from their work. Ignoring the fact that a very large proportion of scientists are themselves religious believers (though it is a much lower proportion than that found in other areas of life) the fact is that science excludes nothing, not even God. The point is that good science leads where it leads. Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a fervent believer. When he constructed his theory of gravity it was hailed as, rightly, one of the great scientific achievements of all time. Even so, he knew there was a small error for which he couldn’t account, so he attributed this to God keeping ultimate control of his creation. He was wrong because he didn’t know, and at the time couldn’t possibly have known, of relativity, something Einstein demonstrated centuries later. So God figured in the thinking of one of the greatest scientists of all time, but unfortunately God proved not to be the answer. If God is ever the answer, then science will discover this, it won’t be through faith.
On top of this, many attempts have been made by science to ‘find God’. There have been four peer-reviewed studies that have attempted to establish whether prayer is of any benefit in assisting ill patients to recover. Three indicated it provided no benefit greater than chance, whilst one suggested there may even be negative benefit. Indeed, every aspect of supernatural claim has been carefully investigated by science. Miracle claims, so-called paranormal events, weeping statues, hauntings, exorcisms, NDEs, etc., all have been studied and no evidence of anything other than perfectly natural explanations has ever been found.
Matt Ridley’s main claim to fame is that he was chairman of the bank that initiated the financial collapse in the UK in 2007 (a full year before Lehman Brothers failed) and had to give evidence to a Parliamentary Committee that wanted to know where he was whilst all this happened. He admitted that he didn’t really involve himself, rather it was his name that was important to the bank (he is actually Sir Matt Ridley, and part of a wealthy landowning family). He’s written some good science books aimed at children, but he’s verging on denialism in much of what he writes. His religious beliefs, however, are irrelevant to his science writing.
It is easy to conclude that Tee is simply delusional (which he undoubtedly is) but it’s much more than that, and I think he has to be regarded as an outright liar. He keeps insisting that there’s no evidence for evolution. He’s simply wrong. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other branch of science. It is now such a vast subject that it has to be subdivided for study purposes. No serious scientist in the world denies it, and certainly no biologists, whether religious believers or not. He insists the bible is true, in the face of all the evidence that proves it is not, other than in minor, trivial, ways. Most believers, and certainly most religions, have come to terms with the realisation that evolution is a stark fact.
Tee yet again demonstrates the impossibility of his ever having obtained a legitimate doctorate. I’ll go further and allege that he’s never passed any formal academic examination in his life. It’s significant that he chooses to limit his reply to the comfort of his website, protected from comments, and certainly not daring to risk direct interaction on Bruce’s forum.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
When most people describe volcanic eruptions, the type that is most often depicted is that of what geologists call a Vesuvian-type eruption, named after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE that destroyed the region of Pompeii. This type of eruption is also commonly called a Plinian-type eruption as it was described in great detail by Pliny the Younger in two letters to his uncle.
Pliny described a dark cloud rising rapidly upward from Mount Vesuvius and being lit up by flames and large flashes of lightning. He then described thick, hot cinders and ash raining back down near the mountain, while further away the ash spread out resulting in a lurid darkness spread over the region. Strong earthquakes were also described.
Pliny’s wonderfully complete description of this type of eruption earned him the honor of having all subsequent eruptions of this type bear his name. Some geologists prefer to name geologic events after a type location however, which is why some refer to this type as a Vesuvian eruption.
But was Pliny the first to fully describe such an eruption, or does a more ancient author deserve this honor? Science has a long history of memorializing the first, and yet in this instance, the first has been overlooked. The eruption of Mount Sinai in 1459 BCE, give or take a few years, was fully described by Moses. Therefore, this type of eruption should, by convention, be called a Mosaic- or Sinaian-type eruption.
Pliny’s description is considered to be a first because it contains certain criteria, all of which are also found in the description by Moses. These are:
1) a rapidly rising, hot cloud of ash and other volcanic material
2) lightning caused by static electric charges as the material is ejected upwards
3) flames or burning material known today as lava
4) thick darkness covering the surrounding region as the ash settles
5) strong earthquakes
“…the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.” Deuteronomy 4:11
“…there were thundering and lightnings… Its smoking ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.” Exodus 19:16,18
The necessary criteria appears to be only lacking a description of ash. However, the Hebrew word used here for darkness, is the same Hebrew word used to describe the plague of darkness that settled on Egypt just a couple of months before. That darkness was described as a “darkness which may even be felt” (Exodus 10:21) indicating the presence of particles in the air causing the darkness—in other words, ash.
One potential point of controversy in renaming this type of eruption after Sinai might be that the exact location of the mountain has been lost to history and is only known to be somewhere in Arabia’s rift region where such eruptions have been documented. Not knowing the exact location should not be a problem as scientific convention still honors the first description even when the type is lost. There are many examples in biology where the type specimen of a new specie has been lost.
Another argument for its rejection would be that acceptance of the historicity of this event is limited to the realm of believers in Judeo-Christian religions. However, outside of the Bible, the Quran also portrays this event as historical.
“We made the mountain tower high above them at their pledge…” An Nisa 4:154
“…when his Lord revealed Himself to the mountain, He made it crumble…” Al Araf 7:143
Not only does the Quran affirm the historicity of the account, but just like the Torah, it marvels at the ability of the Creator to manifest Himself within such awesome displays of power within His creation. Will the skeptics also one day marvel when the whole earth is bathed in a thick and gloomy volcanic darkness? A future day is described by two later authors who use the same Hebrew word for darkness that Moses used (Joel 2:2 and Zephaniah 1:15). In Revelation, John also describes a future plague of darkness that is painful (Revelation 16:10). Could these prophecies be hinting at a future time of significant volcanic activity? Maybe then fellow geologists will accept calling these Sinaian-type eruptions.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Young earth creationists believe the universe was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days, 6,027 years ago. Everything science tells us about the universe says this view is wrong. For most Evangelical Christians, what science says doesn’t matter. Evangelicals always defer to the Bible when confronted with conflicts between science and the Bible. Why? In their minds, the Bible is a supernatural text written by a supernatural God. It is the book above all books, different from all the books ever written. It is an inexhaustible book that can be read countless times without exhausting its teachings. It is inerrant and infallible in all that it says, and Evangelicals believe every word in the Bible is true. When confronted with the plethora of errors, contradictions, and mistakes found in both English translations and the underlying Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, Evangelicals are fond of coming up with novel, and, at times, irrational, ways to defend inerrancy.
Evangelicals tend to be Bible literalists. “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,” Evangelicals say. Of course, for those of us raised in Evangelical churches, we know this sentiment is a crock of shit. We heard preacher after preacher mold, shape, and reinterpret the Bible so as to gain a particular interpretation or meaning. Put one hundred Evangelical preachers in a room and ask them to interpret a particular passage of Scripture or defend a peculiar theological position, you will end up with numerous explanations and interpretations. Why is this? If there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism; if the Holy Spirit lives inside every Christian as their teacher and guide in everything pertaining to life and godliness, why can’t Evangelicals even agree on the basics of Christian faith? Evangelicals would agree that salvation is THE most important thing, yet ask them what a person must do to be saved or what are the prerequisites for salvation, be prepared for a litany of answers. If Evangelicals can’t figure out the nature and mode of salvation, how can they expect unregenerate people to figure it out?
Last week, I wrote a post titled Evangelical Literalism: A Day is a Day Except When It Isn’t. I showed that Evangelicals are only Bible literalists when it is convenient. As I previously stated, the Bible says God created the universe in six literal twenty-four-hour days. On this point, most Evangelicals agree. However, when the Bible says in Genesis 2:15-17:
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it, And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The word day — which is the same word as used in Genesis 1, clearly teaches that on the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree, they would die. Did they die? No. According to Genesis 5:5: . . . and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. This means that there is an insurmountable contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 — one of many, by the way. Evangelicals have no room for Bible contradictions in their worldview, so they come up with novel explanations to explain why “day” in Genesis 1 is a literal twenty-four-hour day, but day in Genesis 2 is not. Instead of letting the text speak for itself, Evangelicals are duty-bound to defend the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible at all costs.
Dr. Dan McClellan talked about this issue in several short videos which follow. McClellan’s areas of specialization are Second Temple Judaism, early Israelite religion, textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, early Christology, the cognitive science of religion, cognitive linguistics, and religious identity. He earned his PhD at the University of Exeter.
Another “doctor,” Dr. David Tee (whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen), weighed in on my post. Tee allegedly has a doctorate, albeit from an institution he refuses to name. When asked about his refusal to share his academic credentials, Tee replied, “God knows, and that is all that matters.” Make of that what you will. Tee’s areas of expertise are “the Bible says,” “I am right,” and “unbelievers don’t know anything about the Bible.” Tee has been studying these issues his entire life, so much so that if Jesus himself came back from the dead and told him he was wrong, Tee would reply, “You aren’t a Christian, so you don’t know anything.”
Tee recently published yet another missive about me titled It is a Waste of Time. Here’s an excerpt from his post:
We wrote a guest post for the BG [The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser] website talking about how it is a waste of time to present real physical evidence to many unbelievers. You do not even have to present it to them but write about it and the naysayers come out of the woodwork.
Unbelievers will find a way to dismiss any evidence presented to them even when the evidence has been accepted by both Christian and non-Christian scholars, archaeologists, and other scientists.
….
The evidence for what we have just said is found in the title of an internet article written by an [Bruce Gerencser] atheist after he read our post on Answering Issues From Science. His title is- Evangelical Literalism: A Day is a Day Except When It Isn’t.
His first line is:
All young-earth creationists are literalists, that is except when they aren’t. Let me illustrate this for you.
Despite thousands of years of accepted scholarship on the meaning of the word ‘yom’ and the words ‘evening and morning’ the unbelievers try to dismiss the evidence supporting the correct translation of those words.
Not only have we studied these words since Bible College days but we also rechecked what we knew and almost every website that came up in our search said the same thing- these words refer to a 24-hour day.
Accepting this correct rendition of those words is NOT being literal but holding to the truth. Unbelievers like to call Evangelicals literalists because that label helps them hide from the truth.
Sigh.(Why I Use the Word “Sigh.”) I believe I said in my post that the word day means a literal twenty-four-hour day. That’s the literal, actual definition of the word. So what’s Tee’s beef? That he is not being “literal” but “holding to the truth.” Huh?
Tee says my article is a response to a post of his, Answering Issues From Science. This is untrue. Tee wrote his post in July 2024. My post was originally written in September 2020.
First, he attacks us for the correct and truthful rendition of the word yom when it means a 24-hour day and then he attacks us for the correct rendition of the word yom when it does not mean a 24-hour day.
This person is just being irrational, and illogical and needs to say something outrageous to get Christians upset. When Christians are going for the truth, they are not being literal, they are being accurate. The word ‘yom’ has several meanings, just like the English word ‘day’ has.
It all has to do with context. The words ‘evening and morning’ provide the context to translate the word yom as a literal 24-hour day. The verse quoted above has the context that tells translators and students of the Bible to not translate the word yom as a 24-hour day.
The person who wrote that article flies in the face of accepted and legitimate scholarship and not just from the Christian side of the debate. There are those people claiming to be Christian who will side with the author of those quoted words. Augustine of Hippo was one of them and they are all wrong.
The reason they are wrong is because they do not want to accept God’s words but have already accepted what secular science and scientists have said. Instead of believing in an all-powerful God who can create in 6 24-hour days, they prefer to accept the words of dead humans who were unbelievers.
Tee proves my point, as does Dr. McClellan above. There’s no justification for “day” meaning a literal twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1, but meaning something different in Genesis 2. The only reason Evangelicals are forced to interpret these verses differently is their commitment to Bible inerrancy. Adam and Eve, according to the inerrant, infallible Word of God, should have died on the very day they ate the fruit from the tree. That they didn’t means there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
Those words show a complete misunderstanding of bible translation, hermeneutics, exegesis, and other scholarly biblical tools. They are spoken to protect the speaker from realizing the truth of Genesis 1 & 2.
Who is trying to keep people from the “truth”? It is Tee and his fellow inerrantists who are trying to force the Bible to fit their peculiar theology. Instead of letting each book of the Bible and each author speak for themselves, Evangelicals are duty-bound to make all the puzzle pieces fit. This is called univocality. In August 2009, Dr. McClellan wrote a short article titled On the Univocality of the Bible. Here’s what he had to say:
A common misapprehension among amateur and some professional Bible scholars is the assumption of the univocality of the Bible. According to this assumption, the Bible manifests a single theological and ecclesiastical paradigm which allows exegetes, in their minds, to appeal to and synthesize texts separated by several centuries and virtually irreconcilable worldviews in the interest of the extrapolation of doctrine and, secondarily, administrative guidelines.
I believe the root of this assumption is the belief that the Bible contains all the necessary information for the institutionalization and administration of a community of faith, which, in my opinion, seems to be related to the idea of biblical inerrancy. After all, conflicting theologies would all but undermine the “God-breathed” nature of all scripture, according to the more conservative definitions of inerrancy.
….
I take a different approach to interpreting doctrine in the Bible. I make no confession of biblical inerrancy, and I believe the biblical texts are in no way free from theological speculation, propaganda, polemic, rhetoric, and human error. I think that asserting the univocality of the Bible tangles up the exegete in the hermeneutic circle and in attempts to reconcile theological and administrative inconsistencies to contemporary dogmas.
While most Bible scholars aren’t often caught up in bickering about contradictions in the Bible and other apologetic arguments, I believe the assumption of biblical univocality still wriggles its way into academia. It is primarily manifested in attempts to homogenize or reconcile the theologies of diachronically distinct cultures and peoples. Early monarchic perspectives on the divine council, for instance, were not identical to those of Second Temple Judaism, which incorporated a conflated pantheon, an expanded angelology, and a more transcendant view of YHWH. Anthropomorphic perspectives of deity changed, as did ideas of monotheism, salvation, the source of evil, corporate responsibility, law, scripture, priesthood, nationalism, cult, and pretty much everything else. The New Testament, in and of itself, is no exception. I think these considerations need to be addressed before one can assert that “the Bible says” one thing or another, or that a scripture in John or the Psalms should be interpreted according to a specific paradigm because it is expounded upon that way in Genesis or Isaiah.
By the way, Dr. McClellan has had his own run-in with “Dr.” Tee. Tee, using a plethora of aliases, has spread his academic “expertise” far and wide across the Internet. Typically, he wears out his welcome and is sent packing. This, of course, appeals to his persecution complex. Tee reminds me of Evangelical street preacher, the late Jed Smock. (Please see My Life as a Street Preacher — Part Three) Smock and his wife, Cindy, preached on college campuses. Smock, who told me he hadn’t sinned in years, was famous for calling women wearing clothing he deemed sinful whores. On occasion, Smock’s vulgarity led to someone kicking his ass. Smock considered his beatings persecution. They weren’t. Smock got his ass kicked because he was a bully. Tee goes to Christian and atheist websites alike to share his Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. When rejected, he continues to “defend” what he calls the truth. Inevitably becoming argumentative and disparaging those who disagree with him, Tee ends up getting banned. In Tee’s mind, he is being persecuted for standing up for the truth.
For those of you raised in Evangelical churches, how did your pastors explain away the contradiction regarding the word “day” in Genesis 1 and 2? Please leave your astute observations in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Some of you engage young earth creationists in discussions and debates about the beginning of the universe and evolution. A frequent argument used by Evangelical apologists is “Were you there?” How dare we say the universe is 13.7 billion years old? How dare we say the earth wasn’t created in six twenty-four-hour days, 6,027 years ago? How dare we challenge mythical stories such as Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and Israel’s migration from Egypt to Canaan? How dare we question the supernatural claims Christians make for Jesus? Were we there? Of course not, and since we weren’t there, our challenges have no merit or relevance. Of course, Evangelicals weren’t there either. The difference is that Evangelicals appeal to faith, and unbelievers appeal to science, history, reason, and common sense. Unbelievers demand objective evidence, whereas Evangelicals appeal to subjective faith. For Evangelicals, the final answer is always “The Bible says.”
The “Were you there?” argument, is no argument at all. None of us was there. All we can do is read, study, investigate, and come to logical, rational conclusions. Faith bypasses all these things, appealing to a singular claim, “The Bible says” or “God says.” This may have worked in the prescientific age, but not today. Evangelical apologists say their peculiar deity created the universe a few thousand years ago. This is a positive claim, one that runs contrary to virtually everything science tells us about the universe. If Evangelicals want unbelievers to embrace their beliefs, they are going to have to do more than cough up proof texts or appeal to slick theological/philosophical arguments. Solid, empirical evidence is what is required, and so far, Evangelicals have failed to deliver.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Who created evolution? [This has to be the dumbest question ever asked by a young earth creationist.] This is a fair question as many people ask, including children, ‘Who created God?’ When you type that question into a browser’s search box, you get a myriad of websites providing the right answer.
No one created God as he always existed. That may blow some people’s minds but that is how it is. It is hard to imagine since we are finite beings and trying to grasp the eternal is a bit out of our scope and ability.
However, you do not get the same results when you type in the words who created evolution. What you get is website after website either giving the scientific explanation of how science works or explanations of how evolution works.
….
Yet, when you scour their works, not one person who promotes the evolutionary theory ever speaks about where evolution came from. They do not even bother to make it a separate entity and said that as soon as life began on this planet, evolution took over.
But where did evolution come from? Many unbelieving scientists want to put God in a test tube and study him but that is mere arrogance talking. No one talks about putting evolution in a test tube and studying it.
….
They are content with studying the supposed results of this process. They have no desire to do to evolution what they have stated they want to do with God. They are content to believe in a non-existent theory and process whether they know where it came from or not.
It is no surprise that evolutionists do not know where the process came from or if it is a created process or not. They do not even know where life came from.
….
Many people put their faith in science, yet, science is failing them as the members of that research field have no clue about the origin of life. They still do not know the original environment that supposedly spawned life.
….
How can unbelieving scientists know the origin of evolution when they do not know anything about our beginnings? This is the difference between Christians and unbelievers. We do not need science to tell us our origins, we already know.
God has told us about it in the Bible. The reason the unbeliever doesn’t know is that they reject the truth of the Bible. We get answers and peace of mind, and the unbelievers get questions with no answers and a myriad of ‘mysteries’. They do not get peace of mind.
The evolutionist or evolution supporter may mock Christians and call them all sorts of names, etc., but all they are left with is a void that they struggle to fill with absurd theories they cannot come close to verifying.
….
We Christians have a God that has spared us this trouble and effort. He has told us exactly what took place and how he did it so we do not have o waste any time or money seeking out the answer to our origins.
We can focus on our lives and go about God’s business knowing our heritage, and having no distractions because the mystery of our origins was solved a long time ago. Evolution has no creator because it has never existed, even in micro form.
It is better to know that we were wanted than to have to go through life thinking we are the spawn of something that does not care about us. God knows us as the Psalmist has said but evolution doesn’t even have a mind so it can never care or get to know us.
Why go with science when it can never produce an answer to the question who created evolution? Or why did it ‘evolve’ us?
— Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God, Who Created Evolution?, March 8, 2023
