In part 1 of my comprehensive book review of preeminent paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall’s book, Masters of the Planet – The Search For Our Human Origins, we discussed many of the blind assumptions and uncertainty that attempted to fill the gaps in his lack of evidence for human evolution. As we pick up in Chapter 6, we’ll see much of the same speculation and story-telling
Chapter 6 – Life on the Savanna
He continues in his evaluation of Homo Ergaster
And in the absence of substantial evidence of technological change, we have to fall back on physical and other indirect indicators…these indicators are highly suggestive even though we are hard put to draw specific conclusions
The uncertainty and speculation persists. He’s staying true to the evolutionary story even with the absence of substantial evidence
There is no shortage of ideas; and although there is little evidence to substantiate any of them, a circumstantial case can be built
So much religion. Not so much evidence
Perhaps
may have been more important than the material evidence indicates
suggested
may have been
so it seems likely
Whatever their origin
would have
would not have been
would also have necessitated
possible
It is impossible to know for sure
is thought to have been
seems to be
the assumption
estimate
begs a number of important questions
as to leave lots of room for doubt
in which case there should be more and better evidence of it
almost entirely circumstantial
could have
may have
may have been
and if you are prepared to pile on a few more assumptions
probably
may
we are unable to say much more than this with any confidence
probably
probably
purely hypothetical
has to remain a guess
perhaps
we can’t be entirely sure
fairly sure
only indirectly reflected in the material record
must have
probably
Uncertainty. Assumptions. Speculation
Backing up a little to pages 110 and 111 we see
And we can’t take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Beyond this, it is fair to point out that there is nothing we know or can reasonably infer about Homo ergaster cognition that would rule out the possibility that these creatures used simple containers
The absence of evidence for evolution is the norm. Evolutionists are excellent story-tellers, and they fill the gaps of this missing evidence with wonderful stories. I’m just not persuaded by their stories
Chapter 7 – Out of Africa and Back
Many people may not know that the “Out of Africa” theory was concocted in an effort to hide the inherent historical racism of Darwin’s theory of evolution. When Darwin fabricated his theory he lived in a time when it was perfectly acceptable to be openly racist. He had nothing to hide by presenting his new theory as praising the white race for being more evolved and pointing out that he thought the darker-skinned people were less evolved. From his work Descent of Man:
Sadly this kind of thinking had real and dire consequences built into the foundation of the theory of evolution. People have chosen to be racist for millennia, but with the advent of the new evolutionary paradigm that was deemed scientifically advanced, people felt they had a scientific justification for mistreating people of different ethnicities. The scientific racism went so far as to actually display an African in a zoo as if he were an animal
As the 20th century progressed, racism (thankfully) fell out of favor among the scientific elite, but because evolution had vise-like grip on academia, a new story was needed to hide the racism. Enter the “Out of Africa” model. The idea is that since humans were now said to have evolved in Africa first, Africans now had the GREATER claim to being the MOST human of all. Dr. Marvin Lubenow exposes the fabrication in his book, Bones of Contention
Now, what does Tattersall have to say about “Out of Africa”?
The human family was born in Africa, and many millions of years passed before we have any evidence that hominids had managed to escape the continents confines. For a long time it was believed…now though, things are looking a lot more murky; for the initial dispersal out of Africa appears to have occurred as early as 1.8 million years ago, or possibly more
Claims and murkiness. No science there. He follows with “suddenly” “it was felt” and “suggested” before throwing out this beauty:
Shortly before the early age of the Dmanisi was verified in 2000 and 2002, dates had been published from Java that hinted at the very early (1.8-to1.6 million-year) presence of Homo erectus in eastern Asia; together, these dates placed beyond dispute that the hominid exodus from Africa had begun almost immediately following the appearance there of the new hominid body form-vastly earlier than anyone had previously suspected.
“Beyond dispute“…please! Dates from evolutionists are presented as SET IN STONE when they speak to detractors, but as time goes by, the dates are as pliable as jello on a trampoline. New evidence requires evolutionists to constantly revise dates to keep the story from falsification as evidenced by the last line: “vastly earlier than anyone had previously suspected.” Because prior to that point, the evolutionists would have expelled anyone for suggesting the the dates that Tattersall says are “beyond dispute”. This book was published in 2012. As of the time of this blog post, the proposed (Darwinian) dates for the Dmanisi fossils have changed 3 times since 2012. There’s nothing to prevent future discoveries from forcing evolutionists to change these “beyond dispute” dates yet again to keep the theory from extinction
On page 127 he continues
Limited as our speculations have to be, however, the conclusion is inescapable that the invention of the handaxe must be represented-or at least have reflected-a cognitive leap of some kind
Unfortunately for Tattersall, the argument from his entire book hinges on this phrase, which we will see again: “a cognitive leap of some kind”. No evidence of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce cognition…just an interpretation of bones and stones to fabricate a story. This story includes (not science) but ever-increasing speculation:
Must have been
if for no better reason than there was nowhere else for them to iccur
must have been
remains a bit hazy
we have no idea
especially since there is no evidence that more than 1 hominid grade was involved
strongly suggests
suggestion
quite controversial
remains pure speculation
but it is possible
it is quite possible
we have so little supporting evidence
how we interpret it
suggestive
is at least highly suggestive
regrettably unknown to us
just as likely
a scenario
suggests
maybe about a quarter million years ago
perhaps most bizarrely of all
enormous controversy
Chapter 8 The First Cosmopolitan Hominid
Scattered throughout this chapter, we see the continued howls from Tattersall that the fossil record of human evolution is deficient
The systematic picture among fossil hominids of the period around a million years ago remains rather unclear, because relevant fossils in the African center of innovation are few and far between and widely scattered“
On its own the Mauer jaw was a bit puzzling
Dating is rather poor for most of these fossils
we can’t say much about the body structure of Homo heidelbergensis, since bones of the body skeleton are few and far between.
Some 380 thousand years ago the terrace on which Terra Amata lies was an ancient beach, to which a small group of hunters repeatedly returned (alas, without leaving any evidence of themselves)
Notice the speculation, uncertainty, arguing, and wagering of guesses on which paleoanthropology is built. Yet, when anyone questions the evolutionary narrative, the rebuttal is inevitably “you’re a science-denier!!!!” In their books and papers, to their evolutionary audiences, they drop their filter and expose the tentative nature of their view. Evolution isn’t built upon mountains of evidence; it’s built upon the predetermined ideology that natural selection acting on random mutations can produce all biological traits.
Chapter 9 Ice Ages and Early Europeans
In chapter 9 Tattersall tells the terrifying tale of intrepid travelers traversing frosty terrain as they transformed from Tanzanian apes into tempered Turks. It’s a great fable, with lots of conjecture.
There is thus no way in which we can realistically think of hominid evolution during the Pleistocene as a matter of steady adaptation. Instead, the story is a much more dramatic one
Ice Age conditions were often tough for the hominid individuals concerned; but never had circumstances been more propitious for meaningful evolutionary change than among our highly mobile, adaptable, and resourceful Pleistocene ancestors. Taken together, this combination of internal and external factors may well account for the amazing rapidity with which hominids evolved during the Pleistocene…rapid evolution…rapidly…quite unexpected…may have been
Propitious?!? You mean lucky? What exactly he means by evolutionary change, he never really says, but the implication is that “change happened, therefore evolution did it! Praise evolution almighty!” Again we see that Tattersall is proposing this strange and unnatural view of ‘rapid evolution’. We’ll see in chapter 14 why he’s pushing so hard for this idea that is so far outside the orthodox teachings of evolution: slow & gradual accumulation of mutations filtered over millions of years by natural selection
And very recent findings have also pointed to something quite unexpected: the possibility that, under fluctuating Pleistocene conditions, new genes may have been introduced into hominid populations by occasional intermixing between closely related and poorly differentiated hominid species
He’s saying that beastiality built humanity. Yuck! Too bad we didn’t end up with the monkey’s prehensile tail or the Orangutang’s strength.
But the problem was that each glacial advance scoured away much of the evidence left behind by its predecessors, and the resulting observations were a nightmare to interpret
No kidding. Your modified theory of evolution has staved off extinction despite the scouring away of much of the evidence. How convenient that the evidence is missing.
chronology is based on modern geochronological and geochemical analyses of long cores drilled through sea-floor sediments, or through the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps.
It is not easy to date a pile of bones at the bottom of a pit
Chapter 9 ends with lots of open questions and plenty of room for open skepticism about the story that we are forced to swallow despite the lack of evidence.
Chapter 10 Who Were the Neanderthals
Maybe we’ll get more answers in chapter 10
we know so little about it due to the effects of repeated glaciation and deglaciation in the region
Again, evolutionists know so little because the evidence is missing…supposedly and conveniently by glaciers. Funny how today, the progressive left (which would undoubtedly include evolutionists) pray to, fight for, and weep for glaciers.
As far as we can tell from a less-than-perfect postcranial fossil record
More lamentations at the dearth of evidence
evolutionary time
What is evolutionary time? How is it different from regular time? The pervasive use of ‘evolutionary’ as an adjective shows how religious is their devotion to the theory. They use evolution as a noun, a verb, an adjective, and adverb…it’s just evolutionary evolution of evolution-like evolvement. And if you’re skeptical of the evolutionary evolutionism by evolutionists, you’re deemed to be a “science-denier”.
Perhaps…appeared to have been…suggested…might have been…might have been…probably too early to know what to make of observations…it is not out of the question…may have had
All of these words of ambiguity appear in the same paragraph
Chapter 11 Archaic and Modern
In this chapter Tattersall talks about evidence of artwork and tools. He tries to build a distinction between what he considers to be archaic fossils and modern fossils. Not much to critique in this chapter
Chapter 12 Enigmatic Arrival
In ch 12, Tattersall intends to build the case that Homo Neanderthalensis is distinct from modern humans – not in phenotype, but only in cognition. He admits several times that the fossils are virtually indistinguishable, but because of the different layers in which the fossils are found, he calls 1 fossil Neanderthal, and the other human. Let’s review
Homo sapiens was emerging
This again is the common lingo among evolutionists. They don’t want to say that it was magic, but their justification for these emergent changes sounds very much like an appeal to magic
Still, this is not the whole story, for as far as Homo sapiens is concerned it appears that the body for was one thing, while the symbolic cognitive system that distinguishes us to greatly from all other creatures was entirely another. The two were not acquired at the same time, and the earliest anatomical Homo sapiens appear right now to have been cognitively indistinguishable from the Neanderthals and other contemporaries
Recognizing species from their bones is often a tough proposition among close relatives: in some cases, much physical diversity may accumulate within a population without speciation occurring, while in others, the bones of members of two species descended from the same ancestor may be virtually indistinguishable. In the absence of a good morphological yardstick we thus can’t be absolutely sure that Aterians or the Jebel Irhoud people would not have been able to exchange genes with anatomically mainstream Homo sapiens.
If nothing else from this book, we see that “recognizing species from their bones is often a tough proposition”, and then when evolutionists cancel/expel/dismiss anyone, who is skeptical of evolution, we see that they are simply protecting their religion. Those presuppositionalists, who read my blog, will recognize the Tattersall’s lament of not having a standard when he says “in the absence of a good morphological yardstick”. By What Standard indeed? Evolutionists can NEVER have absolute surety because some new discovery can (and almost always does) change their whole paradigm.
Chapter 12 finishes out with an overabundance of “maybe”
These tools were more or less identical
probably
spectacularly obscure
One possibility
there is no independent reason to believe that they were around at exactly the same time
other possibilities
Notice from the screenshot of pg 192 how many underlined words leave the reader with the idea that there’s no reason to hold tightly to the evolutionary beliefs. The following page includes these gems
in light of the frustratingly little we know, it seems reasonable to see the initial excursion of anatomical Homo sapiens out of Africa and into the neighboring Levant as the fortuitous product of circumstance, facilitated or even spurred by a benevolent change in climate…quite likely…But whatever the ultimate identity…tantalizing hints…we have no evidence
Speculation based on fortuitous circumstance (luck). And “benevolent change”?!!? Are you kidding me? There’s no reason to take this paragraph seriously when he proposes that the climate was “benevolent” to the proto-humans. Let’s move on to chapter 13
Chapter 13 The Origin of Symbolic Behavior
In 2013 Living Waters ministries released a documentary titled ‘Evolution vs. God’, and at about the 33 minute mark UCLA professor, Dr. Gail Kennedy remarked “You know the problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don’t have imaginations.” Indeed. To believe in evolution, you must have a vivid imagination. Tattersall agrees:
Our ancestors made an almost unimaginable transition from a non-symbolic, nonlinguistic way of processing and communicating…it is a qualitative leap in cognitive state unparalleled in history. Indeed, as I’ve said, the only reason we have for believing that such a leap could ever have been made, is that it was made.
He states that the ONLY reason to believe that humans evolved from their indistinguishable contemporaries is that humans are here. No evidence of this event. No prediction by evolutionists that it could have happened. No other reason whatsoever other than: humans are here. That’s nearly exact wording for an example of the Post Hoc Fallacy.
Some scholars have suggested that the dazzling Cro-Magnon art represented such a break with the past that a recent genetic modification must have been acquired in the Cro-Magnons’ lineage to make all this creativity possible: a modification whose effects were confined to their neural information processing, and were not reflected in the fossil bones which are all the physical evidence we have of them.
Suggestions…must have been. These evolutionary beliefs are thrown into the conclusions without demonstrative evidence. And regarding the evidence, notice from the last highlighted sentence that the EVIDENCE IS MISSING!
Chapter 14 In the Beginning Was the Word
The reason I bought and reviewed this book was the quote just below. When I heard Dr. Christopher Rupe (who himself is a paleoanthropologist) read this quote during his presentation, I had to see it for myself. You can see the whole video from Dr. Rupe here. He reads the quote at about 58 minutes in. I found it on page 207 in Tattersall’s book:
Evolutionists teach that numerous successive slight modifications over millions of years allow creatures to gain new traits to outcompete their unfit counterparts in the struggle for survival. Slow and steady accumulations. But Tattersall is admitting that this kind of evolutions is not supported in the fossil record. He has to invent NEW evolution, and while he doesn’t use the word, notice how easily you could plug in the word miracle as a synonym for each green word below
As I have already observed, this suggests that the physical origin of our species lay in a short-term event of major developmental organization, even if that event was likely driven by a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level. Such an occurrence is made more plausible by the fact that genetic innovations of the kind that probably produced us are most likely to become “fixed” (i.e., the norm) in small and genetically isolated populations…In other words, conditions in the late Pleistocene would have been as propitious as you could imagine for the kind of event that would necessarily have had to underwrite the appearance of a creature as unusual as ourselves.
Evolutionists say they don’t believe in miracles. They only believe in science…
But notice how they just avoid the word “miracle” with synonyms…and it continues
But the results of this acquisition were revolutionary: in today’s jargon, they were “emergent,” whereby an adventitiouschange or addition to a pre-existing structure led to a whole new level of complexity and function. Exactly when our amazing capability was initially acquired is something we cannot read directly from the fossil record: the paleoneurologists, those specialists who specialize in the form of fossil brains as determined from the impressions they leave inside the cranial vault, cannot even agree in principle if there us any functional significance to the minor external shape differences
Emergent = miracle
adventitious = miracle
Tattersall admits that the fossil evidence is missing…and his field of expertise is looking at fossils. He assumes that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE MUST have the evidence for evolution, it’s just not in his field
some believe
speculation
sometimes it seems like a miracle
The specifics still evade us, and we as yet have no idea what the genetic rearrangement was that gave rise to the unique anatomy of Homo sapiens. All we know for sure is that this event did indeed occur. But it seems overwhelmingly likely that….our new cognitive ability was acquired as a byproduct of the hugely ramifying genetic accident…Happily for us
The speculation and miracles continue. I don’t see any reason to accept the idea that humans evolved by means of natural selection acting on random mutations…the theory of evolution, which is what this book was an attempt to explain
The story-telling continues
I’ve already briefly mentioned the classic example of feathers, which were possessed by the ancestors of birds many millions of years before these modified dermal follicles were ever recruited as essential components of the flight mechanism. Similarly, the ancestors of terrestrial vertebrates had already acquired the rudiments of legs while they were still fully aquatic, and a terrestrial existence was still far in the future. You simply wouldn’t have predicted their future function when they first appeared. What is more, evolutionary novelties often persist if they don’t actively get in the way; and in the case of Homo sapiens the potential symbolic thought evidently just lurked there, undetected, until it was “released” by a stimulus that must necessarily have been a cultural one-the biology, after all, was already in place.
If you read that paragraph and know anything about evolution, you will declare: “That’s not how evolution works!” Evolution is said to work by reproductive fitness. Essentially, this means that whatever new traits that random mutations can provide, natural selection can judge whether or not to preserve that trait by how well it improves the ability to produce more offspring. Partially formed feathers can’t be preserved because there’s no evidence that they provide any increased fitness. It’s not just that these proto-feathers had to improve fitness in a single individual. These non-flight (what evolutionists think were broken dermal follicles) proto-feathers had to get fixed in an entire population of non-flying reptiles (as the story goes) and after millions of years get converted to the supremely well-designed flight feathers that we see today. Remember, there is no evidence that feather-like broken dermal follicles ever existed. But even if we grant that they did, they could not be preserved by natural selection if they didn’t provide a reproductive advantage for an entire population of reptiles! Same with rudimentary legs (stumps). Their wild assertions of stumps and follicles surviving millions of years of natural selection ruthlessly streamlining the phenotypes is absurd and definitely NOT evolution. They are appending a NEW story onto evolution in an attempt to explain the inexplicable. Now Tattersall invents the idea that “symbolic thought” just emerged miraculously even though the components were supposedly there all along too. In their attempt to prove evolution, they have to redefine evolution to include non-evolutionary (or in this case anti-evolutionary) mechanisms
believe
sparking speculation
has done nothing to quell the argument
suggestion
We can expect debate
notion
It’s anybody’s guess
Maybe
maybe
will require a lot more information than we have at present
suggests
almost unimaginable
remains a subject of pure speculation
If you asked an assortment of scientists interested in this question what that stimulus might have been, two clear frontrunners would probably emerge
we can guess
Some scientists believe
This is an attractive idea momentous event
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe
But this has proved a tricky endeavor, for individual words change quite rapidly over time: so rapidly that beyond a time depth of about five thousand years, or ten at the very most, it turns out to be fairly hopeless to look for substantial traces of relationship
5000-10000 years ago? Sounds very much like a biblical timeframe. At least I agree with Tattersall above
In figuring out just what it is that makes our brains special, we always have to keep in mind that our controlling organ is a rather untidy structure that, from very simple beginnings, has accreted rather opportunistically over an enormous period of time. So perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for one single major “keystone” acquisition. Instead, the extraordinary properties of the human brain are likely emergent, resulting from a relatively tiny-and altogether accidental-addition or modification to a complex structure that was already , and exaptively, almost prepared for symbolic thought.
As Darwin admitted in his autobiography: “Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”, Tattersall too is left admitting his belief that the human brain accreted accidentally. Why should an accidental accretion of neurons be trusted to provide reasonable conclusions? Would you trust the results of a calculator that was accidentally thrown together? I wouldn’t, and neither should you.
To sum up, Tattersall is a talented writer, and he is an excellent apologist for evolution. I’m sure he does a great job digging up bones. But I find that his attempt to convince critical thinkers that humans evolved (natural selection acting on random mutations) from lower animals is based – not on evidence – but on a religious commitment to naturalism. Evolution fails to explain the origin of humans.
For other areas where evolution has failed to explain the origin of:
Dr. Ross sent me his book almost a year ago and I finished reading it and annotating it within a few months. So, as I have gone back and read through the chapter again for the book review, I am not really finding anything new. From beginning to end, I have found that Dr. Ross although he claims that the Bible is his highest authority, he sees the modern academic paradigm as the highest interpretive authority and conforms his reading of the Bible to accommodate it.
In his personal testimony, we see evidence of this
I did not converse with a Christian about spiritual matters until I was 27. Studies in science consumed all my time and eventually convinced me, at age 15 that a transcendent God must exist. At the time, I doubted that a God who created a hundred billion trillion stars would care much about frail humans on an insignificant planet…In my first reading of Genesis 1, I saw indications that the creation days were long periods of time
If you teach people that the universe is billions of years old, by the time they are almost 30 years old (as Ross admits that he was) and have been indoctrinated by this mantra, they will try to fit everything they see into that worldview…including the Bible.
These are the parts of the text that Dr. Ross felt there was plasticity which would allow him to redefine the scriptures to accommodate the modern academic paradigm
The timing of Eve’s creation
He does not explain specifically here why he thinks this allows for creation days to be very long periods, but we can infer from a paragraph on the previous page why he thinks this is plausible. “Eve was created on the same day as Adam (the sixth) but not until after Adam took care of several large tasks.”
This sounds like the easily refuted argument that he used from chapter 7, when he claimed that Adam had four careers so the text could not possibly have been talking about a single day. His personal incredulity and injection of outside influence completely discounts Ross’s wild claim
The lack of an evening and morning for the seventh day
Clearly, Dr. Ross sees the importance of the evening/morning pattern when God revealed his creative works for 85% of the creation week. What’s not clear is why Dr. Ross takes the single example of missing morning/evening pattern and creates a rule for it. Dr. Ross’s shallow reading of the text ignores the deeper context and exegesis of Exodus 20 when the days are clearly defined with unmistakable 24 hour boundaries.
The Genesis 2:4 usage of the word “day” in reference to the entire creation week
So, at best, Ross can only say that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have the colloquial understanding of a week of time…not the billions and billions and billions of years necessary to accommodate the modern academic paradigm. Biblical creationists agree that there is flexibility in the Hebrew word ‘yom’, but exegetically, it must fit the context, and in the context of Genesis 1, we can easily conclude from the text that it is signifying days as we know them today (24 hours).
I was especially intrigued by God’s creation hiatus following the six prolific creation periods.
We should all be intrigued by God’s creation hiatus, but it would be wildly bizarre to assume there were suddenly billions of years injected into the text from that thought
Finally, here was an explanation for the fossil record enigma
There are three things to keep in mind when interpreting scripture: context, context and context. When we view the scripture in context there was unquestionably a global flood that adequately (and more correctly) explains the fossil record…so the enigma is for the old earthist, who must redefine a world-consuming flood to mean a minor middle eastern rain storm and then create epicycles to explain both the text and modern observations
Dr. Ross continues at the bottom of pg242 and top of pg243 with the strange explanation for what it means to love the LORD with all of your mind
Loving God with “all your mind” means looking beyond the most simplistic interpretation of a given text, especially if that interpretation leads to complications and convolutions of other texts…Yet, ironically, a 24-hour creation day interpretation of Genesis 1 (and 2) complicates and convolutes at least aspects of God’s creation story – the sequence of events, the meaning of Adam’s work and words, and the speed of biological development.
Speaking of irony-> Just above Dr. Ross admitted that after almost 30 years of indoctrination in the modern academic paradigm, on his 1st reading of Genesis, his simplistic interpretation was that God created over billions of years…just as he’d been taught his whole life. So, clearly he’s only against OTHER people’s simplistic interpretation of Genesis 1.
Regarding his claim that the biblical creationist’s interpretation of Genesis 1 complicates and convolutes the aspects of the creation story, Dr. Ross AGAIN upholds the modern academic paradigm and demands that the Bible’s reading be conformed to those assumptions.
And as was shown in Chapter 4 and chapter 5 reviews when Dr. Ross attempted to claim that ALL of church history believed in old earthism, he was WRONG. Old earthism is a modern concoction that attempts to dissolve the modern academic paradigm into biblical interpretation, but as we see, they are like oil and water with no ability to mix.
On p244 Ross asks the question
How Did Adam Do So Much?…Similarly, for Adam to have named all of Eden’s animals within a few hours would seem to shrink not just the size but also the bounty of Eden…species
While I already covered Ross’s misunderstanding of scripture in my review of chapter 7, it doesn’t hurt to quickly address his repeated conflation of species and kinds. Kinds ≠ Species. The biblical kind is defined in Genesis 1 simply denoted a creature’s ability to reproduce at the time of creation. Since there have been many mutations, many creatures that were formerly able to reproduce lost the ability to reproduce. This does not mean they were not originally created as the same kind. But what this means is that Kind is more synonymous with the modern scientific distinction of family.
This means that Adam did not have to name millions of species as is claimed by Ross. Adam could have take care of his divinely-appointed job of naming the animals much more quickly by naming animals in groups
At the bottom of p244 Dr. Ross says
Young-earth creationists see as the futility of attempting to integrate Genesis with the scientific paradigm arises from a subtle error in applying a basic interpretive principle “Begin by establishing [not assuming] the point of view.” The result is a scientifically implausible order of creation events”
A few of things with this quote. Dr. Ross projects his own shortcomings in interpretation onto biblical creationists. Firstly, He conflates science with the modern academic paradigm as he has done throughout his book. Young earth creationists have no interest in trying to integrate Genesis with the modern academic paradigm. The observations of today are completely in accord with what we read in scripture. It is the old earthers like Ross, who have undertaken the mission of trying to integrate the modern academic paradigm with scripture. Secondly, the error is on the side of old earthers, who inject their assumptions from the modern academic paradigm into their biblical interpretation. Biblical creationists rather start with the basic interpretive principle that what God revealed in his word is true, so what we observe today is in accord with what He revealed in the Bible. Regarding his quote about the implausible order of creation events, you can see that Ross rejects the order of creation events that God revealed in scripture in order to accommodate naturalist assumptions.
On pg247-248 Ross unsuccessfully attempts to push the inconsistencies of his biblical interpretations with the observations onto biblical creationists.
A few purported conflicts between the Bible [old earth interpretations] and the fossil record have arisen…
The conflicts arise only for the old earther since the catastrophic worldwide flood is the only sufficient explanation for the observations. For the old earther, it is assumed that fossils were buried in the order that the soil-of-the-time was exposed as the top soil and that there were epochs when certain creatures did not exist. Dr Ross believes this imperative, but there are out-of-place (for the old earther) fossils that are discordant with those assumptions.
Genesis 1 gives the order of God’s creative works, but in both Dr. Ross’s posted timeline, which he posted years ago and on p249 we can see that Dr. Ross tries very hard to inject the modern academic paradigm into scripture
There are several problems with his chart, but I want to point out a particularly grievous problem in rows 9 and 10. Ross tells us that God’s last creative work was Adam and Eve, but just prior in row 9, Ross tells us that the Australian aboriginals emerged prior to Adam and Eve. This is both a terrible assumption and racist. Now, I do not believe Ross is a racist, but his views of the modern academic paradigm as an authority over scripture has resulted in a view that has racist implications.
As biblical creationists, we can praise God for the consistent nature of his revelation. We do not have to redefine the words in the Bible to accommodate modern academic paradigms or cultural changes in sexuality or political revolutions as we have seen Dr. Ross do. God’s Word is eternal and we can trust God to keep his word regarding the future since we can trust his revelation from the past.
It was encouraging to read through the beginning of chapter 20 where Dr. Ross identifies the specific points of agreement for biblical creationists and his brand of old earthism, which he calls “day-age creationism.”
Both views emphasize the divinely ordained significance of the human race.
Both assert that humanity is the only spiritual species on Earth.
Both proclaim humanity’s eternal destiny.
Both deny the naturalistic view of humans as the random result of blind processes.
Both declare that all humans arise from a single couple (Adam and Eve) whom God specially created just thousands of years ago.
Sadly, the agreements with biblical creationists is sparse from here on out as Dr. Ross continues the pattern of bringing outside ideas into his biblical interpretation. The rest of chapter 20 is a summary of a book (Who was Adam?) that Dr. Ross wrote with his cohort, Fazale Rana. So, this review will now expand to review THAT book as well. Let’s see what these two have to say about the federal head of humanity Dr. Ross points out the special creation that is mankind and I heartily agree. Humans are unique in the universe because we have been created in the image of God, and for us Jesus came to pay the penalty of sin.
Expressions of worship are the key markers of humanity’s spiritual quality. The universality of worship is evidenced in the ubiquity of altars, temples, and other religious relics.
I agree! Everyone worships something -> Either the Creator or something lesser/unworthy/perverted In the section titled “A Biblical Calendar” Dr. Ross says
Although biblical genealogies provide little or no help in establishing creation dates for the cosmos and Earth, they do provide a rough date for the advent of humanity…Even in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, where the years between the birth dates of the father and the son are given, the chronology is not as tight as it might appear at first glance. Luke 3, for example, inserts at least one generation, namely Cainan, between Shelah and Arphaxad.
I have already dealt with Dr. Ross’s assumptions of “missing generations” when I reviewed chapter 2, but if he insists on continuing to misread scripture, I insist on correcting him. Dr. Ross while giving lip-service to the birth dates of the sons, seems not to understand the significance since he tries to convince the reader that Hebrew words for father and son could denote grandfather/grandson relationship rather than exclusively father/son. But since the age of the progenitor and the number of years between generations are given in the text of Genesis, then the specific relationship is not required to determine the timeline. Dr. Ross’s entire line of thinking is SOUNDLY refuted in this expert video by Dr. Kurt Wise. If you’re interested only in the topic of the trustworthiness of the chronogenealogies, start the video about 22 minutes. What matters here is why he would try to argue with Jesus, when in Mark 10:6 it is recorded that Jesus said “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Dr. Ross says above that the genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 “provide little or no help in establishing dates for the cosmos and Earth”, but Jesus clearly says that Adam was created at the beginning of creation. If by “beginning of creation” Dr. Ross means “the end of creation” then there is agreement, but if “the beginning of creation” is to have meaning at all, then Dr. Ross’s beliefs about age are discordant with those of Jesus. The inset on pg237 includes some built-in naturalistic assumptions in place of Biblical interpretation.
Using the relatively accurate dates available for both Abram (Abraham) and Peleg to calibrate the genealogies may help guide some of the guesswork. Biblical and other historical records establish that Abraham lives about 4,000 years ago. Genesis 10:25 says that in Peleg’s time “the earth was divided.” Radiocarbon dating places the breaking of the Bering land bridge (an event that ended human migration from Eurasia to North and South America until the advent of ships) at 11,000 years ago. If life spans recorded in Genesis 5 and 11 are approximately proportional to the actual passage of time, then the dates for Abraham and Peleg would place the flood of Noah’s day roughly 30,000 to 50,000 years ago and the creation of Adam and Eve a few tens of thousands of years earlier.
Let’s look at the several levels of speculation with which Dr. Ross experiments with to see how they hold up:
Speculation 1 – “the earth was divided” means the land masses (Pangea) moved apart. If we look at Genesis 10, the context is describing the formation of the nations based on distinct families and languages. And what is discussed in Genesis 11? The tower of Babel where the single language of mankind is divided from a single language and the people are dispersed across the globe. So, rather than Dr. Ross’s speculation that it is the division of land masses, it fits the context better that the division is of the nations by language from a single people into distinct people groups.
Speculation 2 – “If the life spans recorded in Genesis…are approximately proportional to the actual passage of time” There is speculation here from Dr. Ross that the life spans recorded in Genesis are not really years or are in some way hyperbolic. This calls into question the very revelation of God. Why would he only speculate about the “actual” passage of time here and not in the other places of scripture?
Speculation 3 – “until the advent of ships” By his own admission, Noah built an enormous ship 20,000 – 40,000 speculated years prior to the speculated ending of the land bridge, but Ross doesn’t think mankind could make a boat during that ENTIRE time?!?!? There’s a serious contradiction in his speculation
Speculation 4 – “Carbon dating” I’ve had plenty to say about carbon dating in my review of Chapter 16. That was one of my favorite chapters to review as it exposed many of the cascading assumptions built into Dr. Ross’s rejection of the Bible’s account of a global flood in Genesis 6-9
In the section titled “Historical Calendar” Dr. Ross talks about cultural Big Bang events. Anthropologists have found evidence for several cultural “big bang” events, each reflecting the difference spirit expression makes…Humanity’s arrival also launched the first clothing and jewelry industries. Dates for these cultural big bangs all cluster around 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. It’s telling that on the previous page, he speculates that the flood of Noah’s day was 40,000 speculated years ago and now the cultural big bangs are aligned perfectly with the end of the worldwide flood & the dispersion of people after Babel…the dates are simply inflated to accommodate the imagined dates of the secularists. From a biblical perspective, it makes much more sense that when Noah’s family exited the ark as the only humans on the planet recently flooded and a few hundred years later were dispersed throughout the planet that they took their learned cultures with them. The worldwide flood explains perfectly the dispersion of culture from a single point across the globe. This is especially obvious from the presence of ziggurat pyramids all over the world To finish off the chapter, Dr. Ross jumps into genetics into an attempt to push the dates of Adam and Eve far enough back in time to accommodate his day-age old earthism.
By measuring DNA differences across several generations in different families, geneticists can measure the rates at which mtDNA and Y-DNA mutations occur. Such measures yield dates of 42,000 to 60,000 years ago for the most recent common male ancestor.
Of note, although Dr. Ross has claimed not to believe in the evolution of animals or humans, when we check his footnote (p359) for the source material on his claim above we see that he relies on naturalistic evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimpanzees to get his numbers:
Population Growth of Human Y Chromosomes: A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 16 (December 1999)
But rather than relying on those false assumptions and then re-interpreting the Bible to match them as we have seen Ross do, we should start with the Bible as revealed history and conduct science based on the irrefutable revelation of God as Dr. Marvin Lubenow does on pg 227 of his work, Bones of Contention
As we can clearly see, observations line up perfectly with what God revealed in his word, and this is the correct expectation for us as biblical creationists because God both created everything and revealed his interaction with history in his Word. As biblical creationists, we can praise God for the consistent nature of his revelation. We do not have to redefine the words in the Bible to accommodate modern academic paradigms or cultural changes in sexuality or political revolutions as we have seen Dr. Ross do. God’s Word is eternal and we can trust God to keep his word regarding the future since we can trust his revelation from the past. Back to the Table of Contents
This is a shorter chapter from Dr. Ross, and in it he makes the claim that naturalistic assumptions are necessary for the age of the universe, the age of galaxies, and the age of planets to support life.
A universe and a galaxy must reach a particular age before they can support life. Only when a star and a moon are of a particular age is life possible near them. And only when a planet is of a particular age is life possible on it. For intelligent life, the time limitations are dramatically more constrained.
While Dr. Ross has said that he does not hold to biological evolution as taught by the likes of Richard Dawkins, his statements above endorse the naturalistic ideas of
cosmic evolution
chemical evolution
galactic evolution
stellar evolution
planetary evolution
lunar evolution
terrestrial evolution
environmental evolution
As we read scripture, we see that none of these naturalistic ideas are compatible with God’s revelation. These evolutionary theories are simply naturalistic mechanisms proposed IN PLACE OF what God did with his supreme power. It’s not that God could not or has not used natural processes to produce results (He has!). The problem is that Dr. Ross has re-interpreted what God actually said He did in the creative process of Genesis 1 to mean something else.
Age Window of the Universe
For biochemical processes to operate, the universe can be neither too hot nor too cold. As the universe expands from the creation event, it cools, like any other system obeying the thermodynamic laws (the greater volume or surface area, the less heat energy there is to go around.)…These conditions must be just right for liquid water to form and remain in significant quantities in just-right locations. As a result, there are only a few billion years in history if the universe’s expansion when a suitable habitat for primitive life is even possible.
The built-in assumptions that the universe has to be a particular age keeps him from being able to view the Bible from the author’s intended message. We see him make these claims about the age of the universe, but he has no other universes or other billions of years of history with which to compare. How can he possibly calibrate his assumptions since there are no other universes when he’s bound by less than 100 years of experience?
I’m particularly critical of the statement above regarding Ross’s assumption of the formation of liquid water. In scripture we read that once God created water out of nothing, the rest of the universe was formed out of that water. But Dr. Ross assumes that water is just another one of the things that nature formed during its chemical/cosmic evolution. In the past, I’ve asked Dr. Ross about why he feels that the flood of Genesis 6-9 is a minor local flood, and he always (irrationally) points me to 2 Peter 2. Sadly, he joins the skeptics when his assumptions keep him recognizing the creative works and the worldwide judgment of those works in 2 Peter 3 “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”
So, you can see that Dr. Ross’s claims that water formed naturalistically and that the flood was just a minor local event in the middle east are NOT permitted by scripture as a whole – but particularly by 2 Peter 3:5-6
In addition to the scriptural problems with water, Dr. Ross must somehow overcome the observational problems with his assumptions about water in relation to the moon. The moon could not have formed by any of the naturalistic proposals put forth AND contain H₂O. Yet, the moon contains frozen H₂O
On p230, Dr. Ross makes claims about the chemical evolution
The fusion of most life-essential heavy elements must await the gravitational collapse of gas clouds into giant stars…In fact, two generations of such stars must burn up in order to build a density of heavier elements sufficient to make life chemistry possible.
At best, these are guesses and at worst wild claims since no one has ever observed the process of a star from birth to death let alone TWO generations of stars from birth to death or the effects on elements of these generations.
Notice the superlatives and uncalibrated assumptions in the quote below:
Only in galaxies can the density of heavy elements become great enough to support life chemistry. But even in galaxies the appropriate density of life-essential elements is achieved only at one particular time. When the galaxy is too young, not enough heavy elements have been made in its stars for life chemistry to be possible. When the galaxy is too old, star and planet formation have ceased, and no stars and planets young enough for life chemistry will exist. Life is possible only in galaxies older than about 10 billion years and younger than about 20 billion years.
It’s like saying Adam was too young to speak and name all the animals on the day he was created because only humans older than 2 years old can speak in complete thoughts, and only humans older than ten would be creative enough and with a vocabulary large enough to name all the animals. Ross fills his book with unjustified assumptions at the expense of revelation from God. He continues this pattern into the next paragraph
For life on a planet to be possible, the planet must be warmed by a star that burns at a near-constant brightness and color. For intelligent life to be possible, the star’s flaring activity and X-ray radiation must be minimal…In the first 50 million years after a star as massive as the Sun begins to shine, it burns far too erratically to maintain temperatures suitable for life on an orbiting planet. For the next 500 million years, the X-ray emission is too intense. After that, the flaring activity continues to subside until it reaches a minimum, when the star is 4.6 billion years old.
As if he witnessed and documented this process from beginning to end. But the scriptures tell a different story. On the fourth day God made the sun, moon, planets, and stars. So, Ross’s book is not only in conflict with the Bible, but he has ignored the scientific impossibilities of his yarn about the naturalistic formation of the Sun. The sun would not have been bright enough to provide sufficient heat on the earth a billion years ago when life is thought (by the naturalists) to have emerged. It’s a paradox for old earthists that has no coherent resolution.
Ross’s closing thoughts for the chapter on p233 reveal again his commitment to the modern academic paradigm as his interpretive authority instead of scripture being in the highest place.
A timescale for the universe and Earth of only a few thousand years also contradicts nature, which shows how and why astronomical bodies must be at least a half billion years old to be ready for life.
Ross never concerns himself with conflicts with scripture since he feels free to re-interpret the Bible’s actual text based on the fashionable paradigm that is currently accepted and promoted by the secularists.
As biblical creationists, we can praise God for the consistent nature of his revelation. We do not have to redefine the words in the Bible to accommodate modern academic paradigms or cultural changes in sexuality or political revolutions as we have seen Dr. Ross do. God’s Word is eternal and we can trust God to keep his word regarding the future since we can trust his revelation from the past.
Radiometric dating is the death-knell for biblical creationism…Yes? Time and time again, the ages that are expected to be found by dating a fossil using radiometric extrapolations are confirmed with amazing precision…correct? Never have there been exceptions to finding the expected ages when using radiometric dating…right?
Let’s hear what Dr. Ross would have to say. On page 181, he gives a general explanation of how radiometric dating works:
Radiometric clocks operate on the principle of half-life decay. Radioactive isotopes disintegrate through time; that is, they decay into lighter elements.
So if radiometric dating produces inaccurate results for samples of known ages, how can radiometric dating be expected to produce accurate results for samples of unknown ages? It cannot
In the section he titles “Conditions for Reliability” Dr. Ross says
One limiting condition concerns the rock sample’s age. The closer that age is to the radiometric half-life of the isotope being measured, the better.
Surely, Dr. Ross recognizes the assumption that he’s built into his condition. How does one know the age, since that’s what the radiometric dating mechanism is supposed to provide? His assumption is that the geologic layer in which the rock sample is found provides the boundary age. He has assumed that the sedimentary layers of rock in which the samples are found has been laid down over millions and billions years rather than the global flood described in Genesis 7-8. So, the “age” has already been determined by the layer in which it is found, so radiometric dating should align with those assumptions. When the radiometric dating process does not produce a date that corresponds to that geologic layer, the result is determined to have been contaminated or the result must be interpreted differently. Never do old earthers question the method of radiometric dating
Ross mentions two other conditions for reliability on pg183:
Sample size…sample purity. The more a sample is contaminated by materials of different ages, the less reliable the radiometric date.
Regarding sample purity: again, how does he know there is contamination of materials with different ages if that’s what he’s trying to prove? It’s as if a built-in excuse has been merged with the conditions, so that when a sample is shown to be outside the geologic layers or yields an “incorrect” date, the old earther can say “It was contaminated by materials with different ages.”
In his introduction to the mechanism of radiometric dating, Dr. Ross does not reveal the three inherent assumptions within the process:
The original ratio of parent:daughter ratio is assumed to be 1:0
The decay rate has always been the same
No contamination has ever happened throughout the existence of the sample
In the next section, Dr. Ross attempts to wash away these assumptions by adding ANOTHER assumption. He assumes the age of the sample before starting the radiometric process. See his quote:
Supposed “evidence” against the reliability of radiometric dating focuses on the method’s “flaws” or inaccuracies when applied outside its limitations. For yields absurd dates. Why? With a half-life of 4.51 billion years, uranium-238 example, uranium-238 radiometric dating, when applied to young samples, dating cannot be effective for measuring the age of any sample younger than a few hundred million years old.
How does he know the sample is younger than a few million years old?
You can’t wash away one assumption with another assumption and expect your data to be MORE accurate…especially when the rescue-device assumption is what you’re trying to figure out.
In an uncanny admission, Dr. Ross states:
However, numerous large samples of uncontaminated charcoal from an ancient city dated to 1412 BC ± 1 year would yield a secure conclusion that the city burned sometime between 1414 and 1410 BC.
How does he know the sample was uncontaminated? If we could tell which samples were and weren’t contaminated, we would only test the uncontaminated ones. His assumption is clouding his method
Isn’t coal supposed to be millions of years old according to old earthers? How could MOY old coal test at 1400 years?
In the section titled “Have Decay Rates Changed?” Dr Ross has this to say:
The Bible describes the universe’s laws of physics as unchanging from the beginning until God replaces the universe with the new creation described in Revelation 21-22. In Jeremiah 33:25 God declares that the laws governing the heavens and Earth are “fixed”.
In part b of my review of chapter 7, I already refuted Dr. Ross’s wild claim about the Bible teaching the concept of invariant physical laws as a falsification of biblical creationism. The Bible assuredly does not teach that radiometric decay rates have never changed.
However, if (as Dr. Ross has claimed) God has declared the fixed laws of radiometric decay as unchangeable and upheld by God’s power, it would be impossible for humans to alter the inalterable…yes?
Physicists have observed accelerated radiometric decay in those rare instances… where decay occurs as electrons stray into the nucleus. In one experiment physicists forced an accelerated decay rate by encasing some radiometric atoms inside buckeyballs
So, are decay rates inalterable because God has made a covenant with the decay rates…or is your position incorrect?
Besides the experiments that Ross mentions above, the RATE team from ICR produced strong results showing that specific conditions (like those found at the beginning of creation and during the worldwide flood) would have affected the decay rates, thusly showing that the earth is as old as the Bible says…about 6000 years.
Dr. Ross later mentions that the known problem for old earthism of the abundance of Helium trapped in diamonds and zircons isn’t a problem. There is however enough helium trapped in zircons to show that there has been massive amounts of decay, but since helium escapes quickly and is still trapped, then not enough time has elapsed for the helium to escape. The clear conclusion is that the decay rate was altered and the earth is not old as Dr. Ross contends.
In the section titled “Nature’s Calendars” Dr. Ross talks about tree rings and ice core evidence that supports old earthism. Unfortunately, Dr. Ross has made the unfounded assumption that both tree rings and ice layers are annual and have ONLY been annual since the beginning of time.
Each year another ring or layer is added.
He does make mention that he is aware of the revived fossil fighter plane which though buried beneath over 250 feet of ice could only have been 50 years old, so the concept of “annual layers” is a fiction. He counters that the ice cores that “confirm” old ages was dug out “hundreds of miles from the nearest sea coasts.” But this does not help him. Since the flood described in Genesis 7-8 once covered the whole earth, those areas that he is talking about were recently sea coasts as the water receded from the land. He is making the assumption that the conditions that created all of the ice cores were consistent for the hundreds of thousands of years, but he has no way to verify his claim.
Dr. Ross makes no mention of the many incorrect and contradictory results that radiometric dating has produced, so below is a collection of many of them:
As biblical creationists, we can praise God for the consistent nature of his revelation. We do not have to redefine the words in the Bible to accommodate modern academic paradigms or cultural changes in sexuality or political revolutions as we have seen Dr. Ross do. God’s Word is eternal and we can trust God to keep his word regarding the future since we can trust his revelation from the past.
For years Matt Walsh has been an outspoken conservative commentator and blogger on politics and abortion. He has amassed an ardent audience through his multiple media portals. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his opinions.
With the release of his YouTube video, Why I am Not A Young Earth Creationist, this past week, he took a bold step into an area of theology for which he appears to be completely unprepared.
Walsh brings to the discussion monumental misunderstands of what biblical creation teaches …and not much else. Here are the glaring misunderstandings that he attributes to biblical creationists:
Biblical creationists take every single thing in the bible completely literally. Poetry, parables, exaggerations, symbolism are all held the same as history, doctrine and the words of Jesus.
This is a ridiculous view. Biblical creationists take the genre into consideration when reading God’s revealed word. Walsh’s opening point is very polemic and unhelpful to the conversation. Genesis is written as history. The author’s intent was to to convey to his readers that the events in Genesis are part of the history of God’s interactions with humanity and specifically the origins of the Hebrew people. The rest of the old testament and dozens of times in the new testament, Genesis is quoted as having actually happened. Genesis regarded by Moses, the other old testament authors and the new testament authors as history. Should Walsh want to believe that part of Genesis was metaphor and part history, where does this switch happen?
Biblical creationists demand that Genesis be a scientific encyclopedia that explains all fields of science in the greatest depth.
Again, this polemic misrepresentation adds nothing to the discussion. Nothing in scripture is intended to be a scientific treatise, but where scripture covers something scientific, it’s never incorrect. The creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is not concerned with teaching humanity about profound scientific principles. It is God’s revelation of his miraculous acts of creation. Since creation was supernatural acts involving his supreme power, why do old earthers, like Walsh, expect naturalistic explanations for these miracles but not the other miracles in the Bible? Virgin birth? Resurrection from the dead? These things are scientifically impossible. Why do old earthers specifically segregate the miracle of creation as impossible?
Biblical creationists demand that the word day means 24 hours every single time it is used throughout scripture without exception. According to Walsh, a day can be measured on earth, Pluto, or Saturn because God was not clear in his revelation, so he can take whatever frame of reference he wants a day to be. Walsh: “We have no reasons at all to assume that the days in Genesis 1 were 24 hours long.”
Biblical creationists agree that the Hebrew word “yom” can be translated in many ways. The key to understanding what it means in each passage, and specifically Genesis 1 is called exegesis. Look at the context and where scripture talks about this event in other places to see what the word means here. Each of the days of Genesis 1 are denoted with an ordinal (THE 1st day, THE 2nd day, THE 3rd day…), and each of the days is bounded by evening and morning. Looking at Exodus 20 (which is a passage that NO ONE says is poetry), God says your weeks should be like my creation week. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God…For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” So, by exegesis we have 100% verification that God intended his people to work for six 24-hour days and rest on one 24 hour day…just like He did during the creation week. So if old earthers want to change the definition of a day in this context they have to overcome the direct command from God about the course of a week and the ordinals and familiar boundaries of evening/morning.
Biblical creationists hate science and they think that all scientists in all fields of science are lying about their conclusions of long ages.
Again, more straw-man arguments that are not true. Most branches of science were started and developed by biblical creationists. There are axioms and assumptions in all scientific research. Biblical creationists forsake the naturalistic assumptions that the modern paradigm relies upon for their old earthism. If Walsh wants to accommodate old earth cosmology because the vast majority of scientists believe it, he is bound to accept the biological origins of humanity as well, which is also untenable from a biblical perspective.
Walsh starts his video with this friendly sounding quote: “We should be able to discuss an important and interesting issue without getting angry and without getting offended.”
But the more you watch his video, he is not interested in rational discussion. He is clearly not trying to be persuasive but is instead purposefully mischaracterizing those with whom he disagrees as morons.
Walsh gets his arguments mixed up at one point by saying there are days prior to there being an earth…except the first sentence in the Bible says that God created the earth at the beginning. He then misunderstands the definition of a day saying that there must be a light source or days mean nothing. This is not true. The definition of a day is 1 rotation of the earth on its axis. No light source necessary. But for his old earth position, he has a HUGE shortcoming in his foundations since a year is defined as the time is takes the earth to revolve around the sun. What are the units of time prior to the sun and earth coalescing from primordial space dust and how is that calibrated? They would say it’s 9 billion years, but what is a year prior to the calibration of a year existing?
Watching his video once was bad enough, but going back through it again to highlight his misunderstandings is nearly unbearable. So, while there are more strawmen arguments and lazy analysis of biblical creation, it is sufficient to say that Walsh could use a serious re-adjustment of his perspective regarding God’s revelation in Genesis. Our understanding of science is based upon God’s revelation from the Bible; not the other way around.
Should he want to do his due diligence (and he doesn’t care for Ken Ham) there’s more than enough information to learn what real biblical creationists teach from these resources:
Sadly, the church in America has gotten a little too cozy with the government of the USA. There’s too much “rah-rah; kick ’em in the jaw!” when it comes to bombing Muslim extremists or assassinating Bin Laden. The church has been fine supporting and giving more power to the government.
What will happen if when the government adds Christians to the terrorist bucket?
Now, the SPLC is not the government, but the government has been using the SPLC’s lists of hate groups to build their strategies. The SPLC even added Dr. Ben Carson to their extremist list back in 2015. There is a strong desire by those in power and those with “the microphone” to marginalize Jesus and his Word.
All of that to say that being an outspoken disciple of Jesus is becoming and will become more unpopular. All the more reason for us as Christians to stay grounded in the Word because our hope and our citizenship is not in this world (Phil 3:20.) Since we recognize Jesus as King, we must continually be reminded that our King’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The kingdoms of this world have fallen and will continue to fall, but Jesus’ kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and it is for this kingdom that we should endeavor to serve. There is a battle, but our enemy is not abortion or liberalism or agendas or the Gaystapo. Those seem like ripe targets as Christians, and I’ve struggled with battling those physical targets. Ephesians 6:
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
So let yourself be filled with righteousness, truth, the gospel, faith, salvation, and the Word of God.
Remember that history is written by the victors and we know that the victory has already been won. So, it will be unpopular and it will get tougher to be a disciple of Jesus, but that should not dissuade us from being lights in a dark world.
…at least do it properly. Do a little research, and then shoot your best shot. Christianity has survived 2000 years of constant attack and persecution.
At least a dozen “science” reporting outlets falsely reported that the Bible got history wrong. If they had just done a few minutes of research by actually reading what the Bible said, they would see that forensic science is only JUST NOW catching up with divine revelation.
Here’s one of the headlines:
“The Bible was WRONG: Civilisation God ordered to be KILLED still live and kicking”
Sadly, God’s people were duped (Joshua 9) and flat out disobeyed in several other circumstances (Judges 1) to allow the Canaanites to live among them. The findings of this forensic research doesn’t conflict with the Bible…it confirms scripture!
Finding Canaanite DNA in living people is exactly what one would expect to find, because that is how the Bible reported it.
We can trust God’s divine revelation about history, and we can trust him with the forgiveness of sins. Jesus fulfilled the scriptures by taking on the punishment of sin and defeating death. It is his great love that leads us to repentance.
Do you remember the epic journey of Odysseus, Achilles, and Agamemnon in their quest to “rescue” Helen from the clutches of the Trojans? Since the Greeks won the war, they got to portray the Trojans as the villains, but what if a Trojan history book had survived. Could it be that Paris rescued Helen from an abusive marriage to Menelaus? What might have changed in the perspective of the story in how we remember this ten year war today?
And do you remember how the Greeks were finally able to defeat the Trojans after failing for TEN years? The Trojan Horse. The Greeks constructed a massive hollow horse and hid a dozen warriors inside. They left the “gift” at the gate of Troy and pretended to sail away. Once the Trojans let the horse through the gates of their protective wall and celebrated the departure of the Greeks, their fate was sealed. The Greek warriors inside the horse opened the gates of Troy to allow the Greek army inside, and sleeping Troy was destroyed.
The wall that protected Troy for a decade was impotent to stop the attack from within. Once the Greeks deceptively eluded the walls with the gift horse, the destruction of Troy was imminent.
Today, the idea of a Trojan horse is synonymous with inviting something that looks attractive into a vulnerable interior to its ultimate doom.
The Word of God has stood as an impenetrable wall around Christendom since Guttenburg first printed the Bible on his printing press. Once people could read the Bible for themselves, heresies in the church were slowly discarded and evangelism has been able to grow. The bride of Christ has been under constant attack from many angles, but God’s Word has repelled the attacks.
But in the last 150 years, a cleverly devised and insidious plot has surfaced to attack faith in God as Creator.
Last night there was a nationwide one-night-only release of the movie, Is Genesis History. My family went to watch, and the theater was packed. In fact, it appeared that they oversold the movie, because several people stood along the walls and sat on the floor. This tells me that there is a market for such movies. In fact, as I was researching their website this morning for this post, there will be a second one-night-only release of the movie on March 2nd. So, if you missed last night’s showing, grab a friend, and see if the question gets conclusively answered.
“Is Genesis History” is a documentary in which Dr. Del Tackett travels the world trying to answer the question of whether the conventional paradigm (cosmic evolution, geological evolution, and The Grand Theory of Evolution) or the Genesis paradigm best accounts for the evidence that is seen in today’s world. He defined a paradigm as the framework in which evidence in interpreted. So in this question, do purely naturalistic forces best account for the evidence that is observed today or does the narrative of Genesis give us insight into earth’s history.
***** SPOILER ALERT!!! The conclusive answer to the question of whether Genesis is indeed history is revealed below. ******
I won’t give away all of the spoilers in the movie, as there were over a dozen scientists weighing in on the evidence, but I do want to hit a couple of the highlights.
This blog addresses whether God’s Word is the authority, so let’s start with the imminent Biblical scholar, Steve Boyd PhD, and what he had to say about Genesis. When questioner, Dr. Tackett asked Dr. Boyd about whether Genesis claims and/or appears to be historical, Dr. Boyd replied unequivocally that the author of Genesis intended his audience to understand the text as having actually happened in history. The Hebrew people were God’s chosen people, and Genesis reveals the history of God’s interaction with their patriarchs in a smooth genealogical line. A paraphrase of one particular interaction with Tackett, Dr. Boyd says, someone would have to bring their own alien interpretation into the Genesis text to claim that the Bible can accommodate billions of years by redefining the Hebrew word for day. It is clear from the text, that the Hebrew word for day in this context is not plastic enough to mean billions of years as some groups would have us believe. So, from this interview, the question is answered with the affirmative: Genesis is history.
Dr. Tackett also interviewed Dr. Paul Nelson. They met in a computer museum and talked about the history of information. One particular interaction caught my attention. They discussed how biological evolution claims to be plausible by building from a single celled organism to all of the diversity of life by compiling more and more cells over millions of years. In the same way, do we get complicated computer operating systems and programs by adding zeros and ones (which is the foundation of computer language) randomly over years and years? Both ideas are equally ridiculous according to their interview. This interview also affirmed that Genesis is history.
The last point I wanted to make in this post wasn’t drawn out in great detail, but the idea of the Eye Witness was brought up. When discussing issues of history, an eye witness has value. As an analogy, consider a crime that is being investigated by a local police station and the FBI. Both offices employ a forensics team to help determine the culprit, however, the FBI has an eye witness that was at the scene of the crime. Now consider that this eye witness was a justice on the supreme court…someone who is very familiar with evidence, law, and judgement. Would the local police office, who employed ONLY a forensic team in their investigation be able to build as solid a case that accounted for all of the information as the FBI, who employed a forensic team and had an eye witness? The Genesis narrative is written as history from the perspective of the Supreme Judge, and his eye witness account is not lightly dismissed.
I highly recommend the movie. There’s no action, no CGI, and no plot twist, but the information is fantastic, the experts well-spoken, and the conclusion is important.
Since we can trust what God has revealed about history, we can trust Him with our future.
For years Matt Walsh has been an outspoken conservative commentator and blogger on politics and abortion. He has amassed an ardent audience through his multiple media portals. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his opinions.
ApoloJedi 