Welcome to the Great Debate

IMG_7019For 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:

  1. 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. 
    1. 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? 
  2. Biblical creationists demand that Genesis be a scientific encyclopedia that explains all fields of science in the greatest depth.
    1. 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? 
  3. 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.”
    1. 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.
  4. Biblical creationists hate science and they think that all scientists in all fields of science are lying about their conclusions of long ages. 
    1. 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:

  1. Bible
  2. ApoloJedi.com
  3. Creation.com
  4. crev.info
  5. TheCreationClub.com
  6. BiblicalScienceInstitute.com
  7. Icr.org
Advertisements

YoctoNumeroPhobia

It’s not a real word, but I’m going to construct it and use it as:

The abnormal fear of the smallest defined number.

Stephen Meyers lays out a case that makes it impossible to believe in evolution. The whole video is worth watching, but the link starts at minute 24, when his talk begins to destroy the foundation of evolution.

If you know and understand math, you’ll agree. I’ll leave alone (for now) that without a Christian worldview, one cannot even account for the invariant, absolute, and universal laws like mathematics. At about minute 30 he gets into the math itself:

 For every 12 letters (in the English language) that are functional/meaningful there are 100,000,000,000,000 other ways to arrange those same characters…that are non-functional/meaningful. The very same things are true in the DNA protein case. The ratio to non-functional sequences to functional sequences is even more prohibitively small than in the case of the English language.

For a small protein, the chances of getting a functional sequence without guidance is 1 over 10 ^ -77. This is a number so small that it does not even warrant a definition with latin prefixes. The real problem is much worse for evolutionists who insist that natural selection acting on random mutations has generated all functional code. Since the chances of getting a non-functional protein are so much greater than all of the possible chances (all of the creatures 10 ^ 40) over the perceived available amount of time (3.5 X 10 ^ 9), logic dictates that we declare the evolutionary theory as failed.

Dr. Meyer built his case to answer theistic evolutionists, but the case is even more powerful when used against naturalists, who demand that there is no Creator. So fearful are evolutionists of these arguments that they choose not to even engage with Meyer’s arguments. They resort instead to strawman, ad hominem, and genetic fallacy arguments. When exposed to the near infinitely small chances that their worldview kingdoms have any substance, they become prey to YoctoNumeroPhobia. It is an irrational fear and is solvable by trusting the Creator in what He has revealed. It makes sense rationally (to trust One with infinite knowledge and love), logically (science supports the conclusion) and morally (God provides forgiveness for sin.)

I do want to cover a few comments that Meyer only minimally addresses in his talk. Meyers is not a biblical creationist, but I’m pretty sure that can be solved if he were to read my posts on this blog.

Many think they must adopt an evolutionary understanding of biological origins despite its substantial cost to the coherence of basic Christian doctrine.

I could not agree more!!!! The gospel of Jesus Christ is clear!

  • The Creator made a universe that was very good
  • God declared that life was to reproduce according to its kind.
  • Adam and Eve rebelled and brought death, bloodshed, pain, and the curse of sin into creation. Genesis 3. Romans 5. Romans 8. I Cor 15
  • To bring glory to Himself, God’s plan to offer a substitute to take on God’s wrath in the place of sinful humans was made manifest in Jesus. Jesus took the curse of sin upon himself, which allowed God’s children to be in relationship to him.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.

Is evolutionary theory so well established that it makes it compulsory to read scripture in a completely different way.

It is so important that people not take naturalistic interpretations to scripture. So many heresies arise from trying to dilute the teachings of God’s revelation with cultural proclivities.

So, don’t let YoctoNumeroPhobia crush your soul.

God’s Word can be trusted in what He has revealed about history, so we can trust Him with our future! He is trustworthy!!!

Don’t Trust the Rossians…Trust the Bible

I’ve only gotten half-way through reading this article, but I couldn’t wait any longer to post a link to Jason Lisle’s response to Critics #3.

For years now, the invasion of Christendom has been spearheaded by attacking the Bible. So much so, that now, even committed believers like Hugh Ross cannot see their own indoctrination to materialistic philosophies.

In Dr. Lisle’s article, he engages with a critic, who accommodates secular teachings into his interpretation of scripture. Dr. Lisle uses hermenuetics, logic, and science to re-calibrate the critic’s flawed thinking. If you’ve ever wanted to read dialogue on how to engage a Rossian with solid scripture and sound logic, then you will enjoy reading.

Dear Justin

Dear Justin,

My little younger brother pointed me to your show a couple of years ago, and I’ve been listening ever since. I really appreciate the friendly format of the show. Every guest is treated with sincerity and the “debates” are free from personal attacks. Thanks for putting on a great show.

So, I just listened to your latest Unbelievable podcast with Phil Copan. He handled a tough position of answering critical questions with dexterity. It did seem however that the atheist caller, Andrew, got the best of Phil when Phil was unable to answer the major flaw of old earthism. We could all hear the relief in Andrew’s voice when he knew he would not have to contend with a Christian who consistently and faithfully interpreted the Bible. When Andrew pointed out that since Phil believes in billions of years that there would have to have been terrible suffering and destruction prior to the sin of mankind, Phil could only deflect the question. His defense was to say that the atheist was in no position to judge evil, and this is true: atheism cannot account for evil in their worldview. But as a Christian, he did not present a positive and compelling case for believing that the suffering and bloodshed was a beautiful part of God’s “Very good” creation. His only defense was a very poetic passage in Psalm 104, that he mistakenly believes was part of the pre-fall world. A proper exegesis would show that this passage poetically deals with both creation, flood, and post-flood times.

As I have listened to your show, almost every Christian guest that you have capitulates to the atheist’s origins story of billions of years. But there is no reason to give up Biblical authority to accommodate the atheist’s origins story. Biblical authority is at stake here.

Here is a short list of contradictions that are introduced into biblical interpretations when one accepts the atheist’s origins story of billions of years:

  • Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The earth was not formed billions of years after the beginning.
  • Genesis 1:29-30 “everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” Animals were created as vegetarian. No predatory behavior until after the fall.
  • Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Because of God, we recognize goodness, and death/suffering/bloodshed is not part of this goodness. God chose to represent the death of his Beloved for thousands of years by having his people sacrifice an animal. But if animals had been callously dying for billions of years, why would the Almighty symbolize the cruel death of his son with something as common as animal death?
  • Genesis 3:18 “It (the ground) will produce thorns and thistles for you” If thorns are a result of the fall of mankind, why are there fossilized thorns that evolutionists claim are millions of years old?
  • Genesis 3:20 “Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living.” Phil and other old earthers disregard this passage by claiming that Adam and Eve could have been a representative couple within a large clan of hominids. All of humanity has to be a descendant of Adam and Eve for these Biblical passages like Gen 3:20 and Romans 5 to make sense theologically.
  • Genesis 6-9 Global flood. There is so much here that gets missed when old earthers disregard scripture to preach a local flood.
  • Exodus 20:9,11 “Six days you shall labor and do your work…For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth” It wasn’t billions of years or eras.
  • Isaiah 66:25 “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox…they will neither harm nor destroy” This passage is pretty clear that predatory behavior is harmful/destructive and is not part of God’s intention.
  • Mark 10:6 “At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Jesus was teaching that mankind was created at the beginning of creation and not billions of years after the beginning…or must you question whether the Creator knows about modern cosmology?

There are many more biblical reasons to reject old earthism and there are just as many scientific reasons to reject it as well.

It would be nice to hear Christians defend God’s word without having to capitulate to the atheist’s primary tool for hammering at Christian foundations…the Word of God. And it is a shame that some Christians have rationalized the marginalization of scripture to accommodate modern political correctness in science, culture, and relationships.

We can trust God’s revelation about the past; therefore He is trustworthy about the future! Praise the Creator!!!

Orion Says “Trust the Bible”

As you look through the pages of the Bible, it is very clear that the universe is not billions of years old. Jesus’ own words in Mark 10:6 says, “At the beginning of creation God made them male and female.”

orion_large-e-mail-view

Orion agrees with Jesus. This short article from the scientists at ICR is worth the read.

Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly.1 Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.

The evidence seems far more consistent with the biblical account—it appears that stars were supernaturally created only thousands of years ago. With blue stars scattered across the cosmos, our universe certainly “looks” young.

Since we can trust God’s Word about history, we can trust Him with our future.

All scientists believe in gravity and evolution

All scientists believe in evolution, so you better believe it too…according to the media, textbooks, and evolutionists. This is not unexpected. For at least the last 70 years evolution has been taught as fact in high schools, colleges, and universities. So, entire generations of teachers have heard only the materialist dogma of evolutionary theory, and their worldviews have been shaped to interpret evidence through this lens.

You may have also noticed what happens to anyone who questions evolution. They are silenced or ostracized with extreme prejudice. See Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed for further details.

Even with the claim that all scientists believe evolution, it’s just bluster. Many scientists from organizations like The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International employ PhD scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds and well as biblical grounds.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

They’re called missing links because they’re missing

Missing Common Ancestors. In the evolution story, it is said that humans did not evolve from chimps, both species evolved from a common ancestor. The same story is mentioned for birds / dinosaurs and amphibians / fish and reptiles / mammals and everything in between. The problem is that all of these common ancestors are missing. The actual transitional fossils that have been found are questionable in the accuracy of their interpretations. The pattern of discovered missing links by evolutionists is that a small fragment is extrapolated by artists to fit the exact ancestor that was needed to link two species. See the charts below and you will notice that the common ancestors are missing:

BirdAncestor

ReptileAncestor

MissingDinosaurAncestors

 

FishAncestors

 

 

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline