Tag Archives: Young-Earth Creationism

Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design: A Book Review

If I had to pick one book that concisely gives an overview of the controversy over human origins, Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design would be it. Part of Zondervan’s Counterpoint series, this book manages to pull together four of the leading Christian thinkers, about science and faith issues, to have them dialogue with one another in a spirit of charity and mutual respect (…for the most part).

I have been looking forward to this book for some time, as the writers are the most visible representatives of their respective positions in the evangelical Christian world today. Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum and Kentucky’s Ark Encounter, defends a Young Earth Creationist position. Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe, defends an Old Earth Creationist position. Deborah Haarsma, president of Biologos, defends an Evolutionary Creationist position. Stephen C. Meyer, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, defends an Intelligent Design position. Each contributor wrote an essay for the book, and the other three contributors wrote a response to that essay, followed by a rejoinder, by the original essayist.

There is simply no other book resource available today that gathers these differing points of view together in one volume, on this difficult topic. That, in and of itself, is a major accomplishment. A verse in Proverbs makes the point: The first to state his case seems right, until another comes and cross-examines him (Proverbs 18:17 CSB). Sadly, many Christians only hear one point of view, failing to consider other perspectives, leading to mistrust of other believers who might see things somewhat differently.

This is not to say all points of view are correct. They are not. There is but one truth. But it is difficult to properly uphold the truth, if you have not taken the time to consider other biblically responsible options. Proverbs suggests that we should hear one another out before making a firm judgment. Continue reading


Can Science Tell Us Nothing Reliable About The Past?… (Only the Bible Can Do That?)

True followers of Jesus trust God’s special revelation, the Bible. But can they also trust God’s natural revelation, as an independent witness to history, as understood by science?

History cannot be deduced by science, only explained by it.” So reads a promotional ad for the anniversary showing of the film Is Genesis History?, featuring Del Tackett, creator of “The Truth Project.”

A common apologetic argument today, for some Christians, insists that science can not tell us anything reliable about the past. Instead, we must look to the Bible for God’s revelation of history, and not to science, for answers concerning the age of the earth, and human origins.

For those unaware of other alternatives, this might at first seem reasonable. This approach seeks to honor and defend the Bible as God’s Word. After all, the Bible is under attack in our culture, and if modern science is to blame, we need good reasons to refute such godlessness. Christian parents are rightly concerned about worldly influences on their kids, and so the message of Is Genesis History?, hopes to stem the tide against encroaching unbelief.

But is this apologetic argument consistent with what Scripture itself teaches? Is science not to be trusted, when it comes to our knowledge of the past, and our ability to reconstruct natural history? Does science, with respect to the past, only function to explain history, as revealed by the Bible? Let me give you two biblical reasons why the usefulness of this apologetic has difficulties.

First, the concept of fixed laws of nature, transcending present, future, and the past, is actually grounded in the Bible. For example, God ties his everlasting, constant commitment to His people, with the very laws of nature that He created, as He said thousands of years ago:

” Thus says the Lord: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.“(Jeremiah 33:25-26 ESV)

The fixed laws of nature, that transcend time and undergird the practice of modern science, are reliable. Why? Because God is reliable to keep His covenant with His people. He gave us Jesus, a descendant of Jacob and David, as our King and Savior, through the nation of Israel. He has proven Himself reliable by continuing to build His covenant people over many, many, many generations, even today.

True, we can not travel back in a time-machine to observe previous events. But if the Bible teaches that God’s fixed laws of nature are trustworthy, would it not be reasonable to assume that events from the past should be consistent with what we observe today? Here are a few examples, demonstrating that we are constantly looking to science as a means of understanding the past.

When astronomers see distant starlight coming in from outer space, they are seeing light that was generated millions of light years ago. Unless one is willing to accept some untested hypothesis of millions-of-years old light being generated in midstream, or of light that travels at different speeds in different directions, or to suggest some other, hitherto unknown law of physics, it is extremely difficult to conclude that the universe is somehow less than 10,000 years old.

When archaeologists are digging for evidence, they are looking at layers of soil that correspond to ages in the past, as clues to understanding that past. Dendrochronologists measure tree rings as a means of understanding past events. Forensic scientists analyze DNA and other criminal evidence, from long ago, in order to solve cold cases. Most scientists, whether they be non-Christians or Christians, practice their craft today, with the hope that they can reasonably create a convincing historical narrative. But if you inherently distrust science, as a tool for reconstructing history, then science will have limited value for you.

Second, the Apostle Paul taught that pagans, who have no Law of Moses, effectively, no Bible, are without excuse when it comes to having a knowledge of God, as revealed in creation.

” For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”(Roman 1:19-20 ESV)

Paul is quite confident that by examining creation, even in looking at the evidence for the original creation event in the past, we are given a reliable testimony as to who this Creator really is. If the pagan, or anyone else, fails to recognize this, it is no fault of God’s. It is due to our failure to acknowledge what God has revealed in nature.

Paul is giving the first century, biblically-illiterate pagan, as well as anyone living today, no escape route, whereby someone could plead, “Well, if only I had something like the Bible, a written Word from God, to tell me the real history of the universe, then I would know for sure that there is a Creator.

Read the whole passage, Romans 1:18-2:29, to get the whole context, and tell me if you think Paul is saying anything differently. Then read Romans 10:14-18, where Paul recites the same theme, yet again, where even if someone has not heard the Word of special revelation, they still have the witness of natural revelation, as when Paul quotes from Psalm 19:4. In other words, Paul appears to be teaching that natural revelation, which is the domain where science operates, bears a witness to the truth of God, independent of, but nevertheless, consistent with, special revelation, the domain of where we study the Holy Scriptures.

Granted, if natural revelation, as we study it through the disciplines of the sciences, can not tell us anything reliable about the past, then yes, this apologetic argument, popular among Young Earth Creationists, makes good sense: You then only need to read the Bible in order to find out the real history of the universe (assuming the Bible is being correctly interpreted). Science only comes in, after the fact, to explain the details of that history. What more could be commendable to the Christian?

However, just be aware of the implications. This line of reasoning is built on a philosophical presupposition as to how we are to understand God’s revelation in nature, and it has some problems. First, it goes against the grain of how most scientists, including non-believers and believers in Christ, across all sorts of disciplines, daily practice their craft. Secondly, it also chafes against several passages in the Bible, noted above. You tell me: Should a Christian follow a philosophical presupposition, where scientific evidence about the past, on its own, is irrelevant, and ironically, its biblical basis is shaky?

On the positive side, a Young Earth Creationist will have confidence in the Bible, as God’s special revelation. Even an Old Earth Creationist, can say “Amen” to that.

But when it comes to God’s natural revelation, all bets are off: Is God’s revelation in nature to be trusted? A Young Earth Creationist can never be completely sure.

Just something to think about.

 

Have you ever heard of this philosophical presupposition before, that “history cannot be deduced by science, only explained by it?” Well, a Christian DVD making the rounds today, that many of my homeschooling friends like,  Is Genesis History?, popularizes this very idea. The film will also be in theaters, February 22, 2018. You also hear it in statements like this: “You can not trust carbon dating! The Big Bang is really just a ‘big bust!‘” If you do decide to see the film, you might want to also think about some of the alternative Christian views profiled here on Veracity, that the movie does not discuss. Explore this and other topics above, by clicking on the links, or read other articles on Veracity, by going to the search box on the blog, type in something like “creation,” or “creationism,” and click go!

 


Genesis: Paradise Lost, the Big Bang, … and Dogs Who Eat Homework

Some Christian friends of mine are all abuzz about Genesis: Paradise Lost, a new movie being shown in select theaters across America, November 13 and 16, 2017. Should Christians go see this film? (SEE MY DISCLAIMER at the bottom of the post, updated AFTER I first published this post).

In a promotional video for the movie, Dr. Charles Jackson, a professor of Creation Science at Liberty University, explains that the Big Bang Theory, of how the universe expanded from a single point, some 13 billion years ago, is part of a secular mythology, at odds with the Bible. As Dr. Jackson goes onto say, “there are all of these ‘dog ate my homework’ stories” that “atheist evolution theory” proposes to explain how stars were formed, in the wake of the Big Bang. Jackson argues that such explanations are “impossible” and “can not happen.”

The conclusion? Christians should reject Big Bang cosmology. Instead, they should embrace a Young Earth proposal, that the universe was created only some 6,000 years ago, based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. The film’s primary concern is to help Christians have a greater confidence in their Bibles, and to win those who have doubts, to have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, which are critically important aims, that all believers can boldly affirm.  Genesis: Paradise Lost is endorsed by Answers in Genesis, the apologetics organization behind the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, located in Kentucky. Just based on this brief presentation, without any further knowledge, Dr. Jackson’s argument might sound fairly compelling.

But is what Dr. Jackson saying true?

Does Big Bang cosmology really contradict the Bible? It seems like the modern scientific consensus agrees with the Big Bang. If the Bible is out of step with the Big Bang, what does that mean?

What if, indeed, the opposite were the case? What if the Bible, written a few thousand years before scientists in the 20th century confirmed the evidence, aligns with the Big Bang? What if the Bible, accurately describes the scientifically-observed expansion of the universe? What is the likelihood of ancient, pre-modern Israelite prophets, perfectly articulating the precise nature of the universe, in a manner that exactly coincides with what modern scientists, have only recently seen in nature?

As I blogged about several months ago, Dr. Hugh Ross, of the apologetics ministry, Reasons to Believe, makes this very case.  Dr. Ross goes onto explain that the Big Bang was actually a fine-tuned expansion of the universe, and not a chaotic explosion.

But here is the kicker.

Dr. Ross makes the stunning claim that the Bible anticipates the discovery of the Big Bang by several thousands of years. Here is a quick sample of some of these Bible verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Look them up at BibleGateway.com, where ancient Israelite prophets wrote about how God “stretched out the heavens,” a description consistent with modern Big Bang cosmology.

Is this merely a coincidence? Do Christians need to come up with other “dog ate my homework” stories, to explain features like this in the Bible, or are there better explanations that exist? Think about it.

Should a Christian go see Genesis: Paradise Lost? Sure, consider the evidence that the film presents, as Dr. Jackson does raise some good questions, and the film makers have a genuine, rightly-motivated interest, in presenting the Gospel message to non-believers. Amen to that! But do yourself a favor, and also consider a different viewpoint, from another Christian perspective.

Or better yet, read and study what the Bible itself says, and then come to your own conclusion.

As Proverbs 18:17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

Below is the Dr. Charles Jackson clip, from the Genesis: Paradise Lost film, being used to promote the movie, then followed by an 8-minute presentation by Jeff Zweerink, an astronomer with Reasons To Believe , explaining what the Bible has to say about the Big Bang. Zweerink is part of the scholar team, along with Hugh Ross, at Reasons to Believe. Genesis: Paradise Lost should not be confused with an earlier film this year, Is Genesis History?, by Del Tackett and Thomas Purifoy, Jr. The earlier film has pretty much the same message, but the outdoor cinematography in Is Genesis History?, is spectacular, whereas Genesis: Paradise Lost relies more on 3D computer-generated graphics.

UPDATE (November 11, 2017): Though I published the above post a few days ago, I just learned something about “Doctor” Charles Jackson. Yes, Charles Jackson does have a doctorate. This is true. However, it is not in any particular science field. Rather, he earned his doctorate in the field of education, from the University of Virginia (UVA). He is not a practicing scientist, but rather he is a grade school science educator. This type of sleight of hand is not outright deception, but it is not entirely truthful either. At least, Is Genesis History? featured credentialed PhD-level scientists, having done doctoral work in their specific scientific field. Genesis: Paradise Lost relies on experts, that lack the level of expertise, as comparatively found in Is Genesis History?.  Eric Hovind, the producer of the latest film, should be embarrassed. Let the viewer of the film beware!!

 


Perfect Solar Eclipses . . . (and the Wobbly Table of Young Earth Apologetics)

The Great American Eclipse of 2017 brought a few hundred, enthusiastic observers to a viewing party at the College of William and Mary. I really want to see a total solar eclipse, next time, in 2024!!

Living in Williamsburg, Virginia, I was given the privilege of seeing a partial solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, along with many other Americans. But as several of my friends all said, who made the trek down to South Carolina, to witness the totality of the Great American Eclipse of 2017, the difference between witnessing a partial eclipse versus a total eclipse is tremendous. Some have said it is like the difference between getting a negative report on a pregnancy test versus getting a positive report on a pregnancy test.

Inhabitants of the planet earth have the incredibly unique opportunity to observe perfect solar eclipses, that have enabled the rapid advancement of modern science. In a perfect solar eclipse, like the one that crossed America in August, 2017, the disc of the moon perfectly and exactly covers the disc of the sun in the sky, for just a few minutes. This unique phenomenon led to one of the greatest scientific discoveries, nearly one hundred years ago.

Albert Einstein was a fairly unknown figure, in 1916, when he published his theory of general relativity. The reigning theory of cosmology at the time suggested that there was no beginning to the physical universe, an idea that contradicts the teaching of the Bible, that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Einstein’s theory would indicate that there indeed was a beginning, and that this made sense scientifically. To prove his theory, Einstein predicted that you could make measurements during a perfect solar eclipse, to demonstrate that the gravitational influence of the sun bends the rays of light emanating from distant stars.

A colleague of mine brought a colander to the eclipse viewing party, where you can make out dozens of crescents from the partial eclipse (click on image to expand, to get a closer look).

In May 1919, British physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, led an expedition to Brazil to observe a total solar eclipse. Eddington’s observations confirmed that the predictions made by Einstein were 100% correct. Albert Einstein became a household name after that discovery. This eventually led to the contemporary understanding of Big Bang cosmology, with its emphasis on a specific, unique beginning of the universe, in alignment with what the Bible teaches.

This discovery would have been impossible without perfect solar eclipses, that enabled Eddington, and other physicists after him, to make precise measurements that could test Einstein’s theory. There are four basic conditions that need to be met in order to have a perfect solar eclipse:

  • (1) The moon’s size relative to the sun’s size has to match exactly.
  • (2) The moon’s distance from the Earth relative to the sun’s distance from the Earth.
  • (3) The earth’s distance from the sun.
  • (4) Humans had to come into being at the precise time in history, to be able to observe perfect solar eclipses.

Christian astronomer Hugh Ross notes the low probability of all of these factors coming together. In a recent interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Ross said, “The sun is 400 times farther away from us than the moon. But the sun is 400 times bigger. So that’s why you get a perfect solar eclipse.” Yet despite the extreme low probability, some atheistic astronomers believe that the exact combination of all of these factors is merely a “coincidence.”

Taking the view of these atheistic astronomers is close to believing that you can win a multi-million dollar lottery rather easily. As a Christian, I believe that it is far more reasonable to consider the possibility that the God of the Bible, in His providential way, made the exact conditions possible for us to observe perfect solar eclipses, thus enabling the remarkable growth of modern technology, in the 21st century. The existence of these four, exactly precise conditions, helped to me worship God as Creator, as I witnessed August’s solar eclipse, even a few hundred miles from where the path of totality occurred.

Looking for a napkin to prop up that short table leg? You might be better off with a different, more sturdy table.

Strangely however, some Christians seem content to have a wobble in their thinking on this topic. Consider this: Have you ever been out to a restaurant, where the table wobbles on the floor? It can be a rather annoying experience.

You fumble around for a book of matches, or a napkin, to place under the short table leg, trying to even the table out. You hope that you are not flipping your dining companion’s plate, as they try to eat their meal, when you lean over your side of the table to eat yours.

Now consider that fourth, basic condition necessary to be able to have perfect solar eclipses: Humans had to come into being at the precise time in history, to be able to observe perfect solar eclipses.  This is really important as the distance of the moon to the earth is increasing by 3.82 centimeters per year. As astronomer Hugh Ross notes again, there is a “300 million year” window for us to be able to observe perfect solar eclipses.

Prior to that 300 million year window, the moon would be too close to the earth, such that the disc of the moon would greatly exceed the disc size of the sun, thus making the exact measurements made by Sir Arthur Eddington difficult to obtain. After that 300 million year window, humans would not be able to even see a total solar eclipse, since the disc of the moon would be much smaller than the disc size of the sun. In other words, humans needed to appear on earth at exactly the right time in the 13 billion year history of the universe, which is a low probability event (unless you believe in a God of providence!).1

However, if the universe is less than 6,000 years old, as many of my Young Earth Creationist friends insist, you are effectively shortening the leg of the four-legged table of this argument, for demonstrating God’s providential action in the history of the universe. From a Young Earth point of view, the window for viewing a perfect solar eclipse far exceeds the time-span of the life of the universe, at least up to this point in time. In other words, we are not really living in any particularly unique period of time to be able to view perfect solar eclipses, at all! From that angle, the appearance of humans in earth history is no big deal, when it comes to viewing perfect solar eclipses.

Do you see how that table wobbles now?

True, if the universe is less than 6,000 years old, you still have the other three legs of the argument, that support the idea of the uniqueness of having perfect solar eclipses, in God’s created universe. So, I can not completely dismiss a 6,000 year old universe, as at least a theoretical possibility.

But I am still left with a short leg, on the fourth leg of the argument, and that leaves me with a rather wobbly table.

When your matchbooks, napkins, or your car keys fail to prop up that wobbly table in the restaurant, most people would probably just give up and ask for another table at the restaurant. Sadly, there are many people who grew up with a belief in Young Earth Creationism, as the one and only possible option for the Christian, and when some realize that their “table” is rather wobbly, more than a few have left the “restaurant” of orthodox Christian faith altogether, to go to a completely different “restaurant,” if you follow my analogy.

What a needless tragedy!!

As I have argued elsewhere on Veracity, belief in a Young Earth remains at least a theoretical possibility, and I respect that. But if the evidence from modern science, that has thus far concluded that the universe is 13 billion years old, creates in us a sense of incredible awe and wonder, at how God uniquely put us in the exact, precise time in earth history, to be able to view perfect solar eclipses, and enjoy the majesty of God, why would we reject that?

Notes:

1. There are other factors that make the current moment in universal history so unique, with respect to observing perfect solar eclipses, such as the interference of supernova, in making observations during total solar eclipses, and the existence of telescope technology, that enabled folks like Sir Arthur Eddington, to make his observations. If you do the math, you will see what I mean. 


Dating the Adam Thoroughgood House …. (And While We Are At It,… the Earth, Too)

Adam Thoroughgood House. An historic colonial home in Virginia Beach, Virginia (credit: Frances Benjamin Johnston)

Adam Thoroughgood House. An historic colonial home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, but how old is it? (credit: Frances Benjamin Johnston)

I write this post in memory of my dad, who died one year ago today. My dad was a brilliant man, an architectural historian by trade, who inspired in me the desire to pursue the knowledge of the truth, even if that truth might challenge popular convictions. So while there is an application towards Christian apologetics here, I want to frame it within the context of one particular fascinating mystery in the history of colonial Virginia, a mystery that captivated the thought and imagination of my dad….

Let me take you back to Princess Anne County, a few hundred years ago, in the Tidewater of the Virginia Colony…

Adam Thoroughgood was a 17th century English Puritan (roughly equivalent to an evangelical Christian today), who obtained his passage to Virginia as an indentured servant, in the 1620s. After paying off his indentured servitude, Throughgood returned to England, married a wealthy woman, and came back to eastern Virginia, in modern day Virginia Beach, to become one of the most prominent land owners in the colony.

The traditional story was that Adam Thoroughgood built a brick home, in 1636, thought to be one of earliest structures of its kind in North America. None of the other surrounding structures, such as the slave quarters, have survived, but the Adam Thoroughgood house became one of the great prides of the area, as a U.S. National Historic Landmark, to boot, with all of its unique history…. or so it seemed. Continue reading


%d bloggers like this: