A Former Young Earth Creationist Encounters the Beauty of Evolution and Why Baramins May Be a Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark.

“I would rather be what God chose to make me than the most glorious creature that I could think of; for to have been thought about, born in God's thought, and then made by God, is the dearest, grandest and most precious thing in all thinking.” ― George MacDonald link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=47235&picture=shell-fossils
Shell Fossils

There is an advantage of staying in a church over a long period of time if one is interested in observing how various beliefs play out in reality. I know that some of our readers do not like us to wander into the area of creationism. However, it has been an issue that has helped me to observe the demise of promised results.

Here is a quote from that bon vivant of the young earthers, Ken Ham, in an article he wrote in 2015 Is AIG Driving Young People from the Church?

Well, research published in 2011 by the Barna Group in the book You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church, and Rethinking Faith by David Kinnaman, actually shows how wrong this accusation is. An article on this book and its research says that one of the six reasons that young people are leaving the church is because “Churches come across as antagonistic to science.”

He quoted the Barna study.

It goes on to say,

One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

Then he makes his point. Young people are leaving the church because they are not being taught the reality of young earth creationism. In fact, it is rather amusing that he equates apologetics with teaching young earth creationism.

Now, why do these young people who left the church think that Christianity is “anti-science” or “out of step with the scientific world we live in”? Is it because they were taught apologetics by Answers in Genesis or another creation ministry? No! It’s because they weren’t taught apologetics at all! One of the graphs in the book shows that 52% of the young people surveyed aspired to work in a science-related career but only 1% of the surveyed young people said that their youth pastor or youth worker had addressed “issues of science in the past year.” Only 1%!

A church which did it Ken Ham's way and things didn't turn out as expected.

There was a well known family in my former church. They were the role models for "how to raise your kids." They were home schooled, of course. The father was involved in the church leadership and the mom was involved in teaching other families "how to do it their way."

I was still rather clueless about things at this church. However, I was becoming increasingly concerned that the church taught young earth creationism exclusively to the children from kindergarten through high school. Every year (I am not exaggerating), each class had to spend 6 weeks teaching young earth creationism. So, one day, I stopped at this family's house to pick up something. I mentioned my concern to this mother and was taken aback by her response. She adamantly stated that young earth creationism was the only biblical approach and that I was wrong to be concerned.

So, not only did the church teach young earth creationism exclusively, the kids in that home school group were hearing it there as well. My husband and I took matters into our own hands and taught our kids our belief in an old earth as well as helping them to understand that even evolution could have been part of God's plan.

Years down the line I learned that the children, now adults, (and very nice, by the way, have rejected the faith altogether and have a cold relationship with their parents. By the way, they know Ken Ham's *apologetics" and they have rejected the faith, in part, because they know how bogus it is.

I bet you are thinking that this is just one example. I wish it were so. Another family who we knew in the same church were totally sold on  the gospel being equated with young earth beliefs. Their oldest son came to them and said he no longer believed it. They insisted that he could not be a Christian and believe differently. So, the son rejected the entire faith. When I asked the parents if they thought if was worth it to insist on a young earth, they said they had to because biblical *truth* was more important than compromising.

Recently, I received an email from a reader who wanted to tell me that he had recently rejected a Young Earth in favor of an Old Earth. He had defended the young earth position here and I asked him what changed his mind. He said he did what I suggested. He went to websites like Reasons to Believe, the American Scientific Affiliation and Biologos and came to the conclusion the evidence for an old earth was irrefutable.

Scientific discoveries are beautiful; not grotesque.

Slate recently posted How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution. The opening to this article caught my eye. 

Scientists announced in September that they had discovered a huge cache of ancient hominid bones deep in a cave in South Africa. The bones, representing at least 15 individuals, belonged to previously unidentified member of our family tree. Homo naledi had fingers curved for climbing, a brain the size of an orange, and perhaps even a penchant for disposing of its dead.

When he heard the news, Brad Kramer rejoiced. “Awe-inspiring” is how Kramer, who was watching the two-hour NOVA and National Geographic special at home on PBS, described it. “The discovery, the evolutionary science, was amazing.”

Coming from a typical science-loving American, that response would hardly have been noteworthy. But Kramer isn’t like most science-loving Americans: He’s an evangelical Christian, a demographic group not particularly known for rejoicing over the study of human evolution. If the Homo naledi discovery had happened 15 years ago, Kramer would have had a far different reaction. He would have considered it an attempt by atheists to hijack faith with their “science-based religion.”

I would not have seen such a discovery as beautiful,” he says now. “I would have seen it as grotesque.”

The life story of Kramer

He had been taught that science was good but the theory of evolution was made up by atheists.

In general, science was good. But evolution, Kramer was told, wasn’t science. “I had no idea there was anything to evolutionary theory other than atheist wishful thinking,” he says. “I had been told growing up and in every book I read that it was irrational, blind guesses made up by atheists to substantiate their atheist beliefs.”

Evolution was anti-Christianity.

As he began exploring the possibility that evolution was true, he became unsure of his faith. It is obvious that his parents were unable to be of help to him during this struggle so he felt scared.

To Kramer, the sites sounded hostile—as if they were “written as a direct attack on my faith” and “intentionally trying to jab a sharp stick in the eye of the Christians.” But they also sounded true. It was as if he had stumbled into a Pandora’s box, opening up question upon question that he felt ill-equipped to answer. For instance: OK, let’s say that an evolutionary process did take place. But if God was perfect, and God had chosen to use evolution, then why was evolution so flawed? “It was almost like my beliefs were colliding with reality,” he says. “There were just pieces in my mind that I could not put together … It was very scary.”

Kramer ventured into intelligent design but did not find enough there to satisfy him scientifically. Then, while attending Kings College, he had the rare opportunity to meet Dr Francis Collins.

Collins is an unusual scientist. As the longtime head of the Human Genome Project, he is one of the world’s leading geneticists as well as a devout, outspoken Christian. (Compared to the general population, far fewer scientists believe in God, according to Pew research.) In 2006, Collins wrote The Language of God, a deeply personal book that argued that the sciences provide evidence for the existence of a higher power. He once described the sequencing of the human genome with these words: “It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”

Collins was the first Christian Kramer had met who embraced evolution. In his lecture, Collins presented evolution as a means to understand the beauty and glory of God. Here was someone who showed that you could be an excellent scientist and still believe in God. “Most people are seeking a possible harmony between these worldviews [science and faith],” Collins said in an interview about the book. “And it seems rather sad that we hear so little about this possibility.”

In 2007, Collins founded BioLogos, a nonprofit that preaches the harmony between science and Christian faith. BioLogos’ target demographic is those softened evangelicals, as well as scientists who want to embrace faith. According to Deborah Haarsma, the current president of BioLogos, it embraces a literalist reading of the Bible, Jesus and all: “The Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God.” But it also embraces evolution. “We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as creator of all life over billions of years,” reads the BioLogos mission statement. “[E]volution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.”

Kramer embraced evolution, went to seminary to study the Bible, and  wrote an op ed piece for Patrol, Bridging the Great Divide. He writes beautifully. Here are the final two paragraphs of the piece.

Theistic evolution describes a God who created a universe with a “robust foundational economy,” to borrow again from Van Till. God poured his creative energy and his love into creation, forming a universe so good and so gifted that it had the ability to grow, develop, and improve without his constant correction. And where was God during the millions of years before Adam? He was there the whole time, involved in a wonderful, incomprehensible dance with his creation; sustaining and growing it until it was for him to imbue man with his nature. 

The greatest irony of the evolution debate is that the sword that killed God should have been a death blow to secularism instead. Evolution shows our creator to be majestic, purposeful, and ingenious beyond any of our imaginations. By rejecting evolution, Christians jettison their best opportunity to unite faith and reason. For those who wish to restore Christianity’s place in the public square, no task should be more important. As 19th century theologian Benjamin Warfield put it: “Let us, then, cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day … None should be more quick to discern truth, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it, whithersoever it leads.”

Kramer has gone on to start a blog hosted at Biologos called The Evolving Evangelical. Here is what he has to say about his blog.

"Let us, then, cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day … None should be more quick to discern truth, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it, whithersoever it leads.” -evangelical theologian B.B. Warfield

Evangelical Christians are often seen as hopelessly anti-science. As a lifelong Evangelical, I've experienced these attitudes firsthand. But I also think Evangelicalism is evolving, as the movement asks new questions and deals with its spotted past. It's a complicated and exciting time to be an Evangelical (especially as a millennial), and I welcome you to follow my journey of faith as I wrestle with the hard questions about faith, science, and the Bible.

I only wish I could have reached out to more of the kids growing up in that church and had been able to show them how we can reconcile science with our understanding of the Bible. It breaks my heart to think about these kids who were so poorly taught that they felt they either had to accept shoddy science or to leave the faith. I am grateful for millennials like Kramer who are out there providing both the questions and some answers. 

Please take the time to read the entire post at Slate. It is well written.

Ken Ham's Ark and the messy problem of baramins and  evolution

For those of you who want to read more or to be challenged more, here is a link to an excellent article: Dodging Darwin: How Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is Slowly Embracing Evolution found at NATURALIS HISTORIA: Exploring the Intersection of Science and Faith. Have you ever heard of baramins? Well, neither had I but they look to be very important in order to explain how Noah could have gotten all the animals on board this little boat. The answer is-he didn't. It would be impossible to get all of the animals of the world on one boat and Ken Ham knows that.

Baramins

As the strict young-earth creationists at Answers in Genesis work to complete their Ark Encounter “theme park,” they have expended an impressive amount of energy organizing the millions of species of land animals alive today into a handful of small groups they call “baramins.”

They claim these groups represent the original created kinds of which Noah would have brought pairs onto the ark. This consolidation of numerous species into single “baramin” groups is driven primarily by the space on Noah’s purported vessel. The smaller the menagerie the Ark was purported to have contained, the more feasible it seems, and so the “baraminologists” at Answers in Genesis have gone to great lengths to explain how the vast array of species today could have been represented by a relatively low number of ancestral pairs.

This theory may constitute a real problem for Answers in Genesis.

Unfortunately for the young-earth model, the push to minimize the number of animals riding on the Ark has exposed a major problem with this view. Ironically, this problem is perhaps nowhere more apparent than with the very clade (the technical/evolutionary equivalent of the term “kind”) to which cats and dogs belong: Order Carnivora.

…Baraminologists claim that hundreds of species of carnivorans all descended from just eight ancestral pairs that survived the global Flood by riding on Noah’s Ark just a few dozen centuries ago. The creationist rule is simple: there can be dramatic variation within each of these groups, but no creature will fit between any of these groups.

The problem is obvious. Creationists claim that the various “baramins” all have intrinsic, essential differences that render them totally unique and distinct from one another, but the presumed ancestors of each of these groups are all very, very similar. In fact, if creationists were presented with only the eight “ancestral” species depicted above, they would likely group most or all of them into a single baramin based on their obvious similarities. There is more morphological and genetic variation within each of the terminal “baramins” identified by Answers in Genesis than there is within the collective group formed by their ancestors.

It almost seems it would be easier for creationists to claim a “super-carnivore” species which survived the flood as a single pair on board Noah’s Ark and thereafter multiplied into the many species shown above. Of course, they can’t do that, because they’ve spent the last sixty years insisting cats, dogs, hyenas, and bears (along with numerous other families) are all separate, distinct kinds which couldn’t possibly share a common ancestor. They would have to explain how a single common ancestor for all carnivores is really just “extended microevolution” if they wanted to keep insisting that “macroevolution” is impossible.

What’s more, they’re running out of time. Creationists believe in an Ice Age which ended about 700 years after the global flood, at which point most modern species would have had to already emerge. They must already propose an exponentially rapid burst of evolutionary speciation following the flood; there is no way they can fit a full 40 million years of adaptation and speciation into the 200-odd generations that would have spanned this period.

I look forward to the discussion. 

Comments

A Former Young Earth Creationist Encounters the Beauty of Evolution and Why Baramins May Be a Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark. — 434 Comments

  1. That is a wonderful article! I am old earth and work in a scientific field, so I gobble stuff like this up!

  2. When I asked the parents if they thought if was worth it to insist on a young earth, they said they had to because biblical *truth* was more important than compromising.

    Purity of Ideology, Comrades.

  3. @ Beth D:
    Yay! I grew up in the north and did not encounter the rigid young earth creationists until I moved to North Carolina.

  4. It was quite an eye-opener when I realized my school (a private Christian institution), my church, and my parents had all been lying to my me whole life about science and evolution. I wondered what else they had been lying about.

    (A whole lot, it turns out.)

  5. I am crying right now, you do not know just how healing and freeing this is Dee. I really mean this I feel / think about being validated for the first time on this subject for many years. Again thank you. Brian

  6. Generally, I am of the opinion that arguing over mechanism is not worth the effort.

    Some basics need to be believed theologically for certain doctrines to work–e.g. a literal Adam and Eve (a la Romans 5 federalism), God created the world, etc.–and beyond that, I think it is okay to allow for variation in belief about the “How?”

    I rather die in ditch over Jesus’ literal death and resurrection than argue over evolution versus young earth Creationism. But that’s me…

  7. Oh dear Lord, what is AIG up to now? Inventing more pseudo-science? There are so many problems with the recent global flood theory, that I would respect AIG more if they just said, “It’s magic” and left it at that.

  8. Ken Hamm. Yeah, last spring my church rented a Greyhound to ride to the Creation Museum. I stayed home. I knew I wouldn’t behave like a meek, submissive woman (or girl, as MC would say).

    Baramins???? Ohhhhhhhhkayyyyyy. Hamm doesn’t want to go there with me. Sure, Noah and family were hominids who branched out evolved into humans and the various species of apes after the flood, maybe even Neanderthals and Cro-magnons??? Yep, Adam and Noah were ancestors to Jesus, Albert Einstein and the Rhesus monkeys! Would that make more room on the ark for the dinosaurs? Maybe evolution began at the Tower of Babel. (Snort, giggle, smirk)

    My husband is staunch YEC, but I have so many problems with it, and then some. For the life of me, I can’t conceive of how God made Adam, then Adam named ALL of the animals, and then God put Adam in a deep sleep so He could make Eve, in that order ~~~~~ all in one 24 hour day. I really don’t believe “day” has the same definition in the first 3 chapters of Genesis as we understand it. Even SBC preachers/leaders will tell you that time means nothing to God.

  9. I have made the following comments, or similar replies to previous posts on the WW, so those of you who remember them can skip it.
    First, I completely agree/endorse with what Dee posted above.
    Second, I am someone that was raised in a church, and a General Association of Baptist Churches (GRABC) High school, told taught YEC was the only WAY, just as Dee reported above.
    Third, I am a Bioengineering Professor at a major Public University that specializes in cancer detection and growth of cells and stem cells used for therapies.
    Fourth, it took me many, many years of struggling with the DAMAGE the YEC “science” did to me and my faith…
    Fifth, I personally know people that left the faith over the bogus science of YEC.. it is actually quite common…
    Six, because of my scientific training/research in both the physical sciences and biology, I can evaluate the YEC “science”, and I continue to be dumbfounded w/r to how BAD it is… and how quickly YECers resort to character assassination of anyone that raises legitimate questions.. this was done to me personally before Ken Ham was on the scene and Ken Hall is great at continuing it.. and I still have it done to me….
    Seventh, many unscientific Christians blow this whole issue off (or put their head in the sand). While this approach might work for them personally, the pursuit of truth should be a concern of everyone, and how we approach this is key to the future… the rate of scientific development is increasing… and the church is still struggling with science/faith issues from 100 years ago.. guess what, there is even greater issues just around the corner…

  10. Creation Shmeation. I recently learned that TRUE Christians know that the world is flat:

    https://youtu.be/bdxgIyEPCxk

    Yeah, that’s a long video, but just a simple article wouldn’t capture the lunacy. You can get the message from the title and description too. If you want to draw that line at YEC, why not this?

  11. Baramins huh? I’m thinking that Potter must be a separate species altogether. Rogue, contrary, fits nowhere, what other conclusion is there to arrive at?

  12. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I rather die in ditch over Jesus’ literal death and resurrection than argue over evolution versus young earth Creationism.

    People I know have varying beliefs and some have a hook into the literal creation story they can’t let go. They claimed some interlocking arguments they believe requires only one result, any diversion is supposed to lead to dismantling their Christian faith. So far I haven’t seen the connections so it is hard to imagine being convinced, thus if the subject can’t be changed I walk away. I have tried with limited success to interject things that are actually important instead of trying a direct assault.

    While religious belief certainly seems to cloud scientific understanding so can other things. I could classify some science today more in the category of “political” science. I get frustrated when the outcome is insisted on with little regard to scientific analysis. When I find that proponents suppress rather than engage questioning and opposition I figure they are less about science and more about religion or politics and with some it is both. I would add that in the church suppression has nothing to do with Christ.

  13. I got this treatment by a few people. I am a firm believer in science. I don’t have any problems with a person believing YEC, but when it’s given a yeah or nay, meaning “You can’t be a Christian and believe in evolution approach…” well that causes needless problems

  14. What’s more, they’re running out of time. Creationists believe in an Ice Age which ended about 700 years after the global flood, at which point most modern species would have had to already emerge. They must already propose an exponentially rapid burst of evolutionary speciation following the flood; there is no way they can fit a full 40 million years of adaptation and speciation into the 200-odd generations that would have spanned this period.

    “And then a MIRACLE happened!” (handwave handwave handwave)
    “And then a MIRACLE happened!” (handwave handwave handwave)
    “And then a MIRACLE happened!” (handwave handwave handwave)
    “And then a MIRACLE happened!” (handwave handwave handwave)
    “And then a MIRACLE happened!” (handwave handwave handwave)

  15. My on-again, off-again boyfriend and I were drinking overpriced coffee last Saturday at a Starbucks and the subject of creationism came up. He’s an astronomy geek and simply does not understand why creationists would have a problem with the Big Bang. “Why,” he said, “a lot of astronomers and physicists had a problem with it in the beginning (heh heh) because the Big Bang sounds a lot like, ‘And God said, “Let there be light.”‘” And of course, the proposer of the Big Bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, who was a Jesuit priest.

    He’s Catholic, so I had to explain to him that to the YECs, the text in the Bible, *as the YECs interpret it*, counts for absolutely more than any scientific evidence whatsoever. If the Bible says (fill in the blank) is true, then it’s absolutely true, no matter how many fossils you find (and yeah, I’m way oversimplifying it).

    As for me, I decided YEC couldn’t be true for a few reasons: 1) YEC doesn’t deal at all with fish and assumes all fish can just live in the water. That can’t happen, as fish are adapted to live in various water environments–fresh mountain streams, deep oceans, brackish lakes, etc., etc. All the fish would just die in a flood.

    My number 2) reason is astronomical in character. It’s possible, in a dark sky, to see the smudge that is the Andromeda Galaxy, two million light years away. So there are photons that were emitted by stars there, two million years ago, and they’re hitting your eyes and giving you that smudge in your vision. But YEC would have everyone to believe that the entire Universe, light and all, was created one day some 6000 years ago. Sure, God could do that, but *why*? Does that not make God into a trickster?

    My number 3) reason has to do with the idea proposed by YECs that there was no death before the Fall, i.e., carnivorous animals ate vegetables. Well, they think too large. They don’t think about the microbiota–the bacteria that live in the environment, including in our bodies. They’re constantly splitting and gobbling each other up and dying. Bacteria don’t eat plants, they eat stuff way smaller than plants. And besides, this “no death before the Fall” and “lions ate cabbages” ignores that cabbages are also living things as well. So the logic fails there as well.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or any of the other YECs lies (and yes, that’s a strong word, but I think YEC is a pack of lies) about the physical universe, then why on earth should I believe them when they say they know the way to heaven? Answer: they probably don’t. (Especially when they make YEC a “gospel” requirement beyond preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified.)

  16. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Seventh, many unscientific Christians blow this whole issue off (or put their head in the sand). While this approach might work for them personally, the pursuit of truth should be a concern of everyone, and how we approach this is key to the future… the rate of scientific development is increasing… and the church is still struggling with science/faith issues from 100 years ago.. guess what, there is even greater issues just around the corner…

    One of which got some coverage here at Wartburg Watch last July:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/01/genetic-engineering-taking-evolution-into-our-own-hands-guest-post-by-oldjohnj/

  17. brian wrote:

    I really mean this I feel / think about being validated for the first time on this subject for many years.

    I would love to hear your story.

  18. mirele wrote:

    If the Bible says (fill in the blank) is true, then it’s absolutely true, no matter how many fossils you find (and yeah, I’m way oversimplifying it).

    “If the Fuehrer decrees it, Two Plus Two Equals Five.”
    — attr to Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering

    But YEC would have everyone to believe that the entire Universe, light and all, was created one day some 6000 years ago. Sure, God could do that, but *why*? Does that not make God into a trickster?

    “Who are we to Question Him? HE IS THE CREATOR and we are the creature.”

    And as JMJ at Christian Monist put it, “I’d like to know where God set up the projector that’s been back-projecting on that screen 6000 light-years away.”

    If Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or any of the other YECs lies (and yes, that’s a strong word, but I think YEC is a pack of lies) about the physical universe, then why on earth should I believe them when they say they know the way to heaven?

    St Augustine had his problems, but he said pretty much the same thing some 1600 years ago.

  19. I was raised YEC though I always had some questions. After finally studying it out, I became an evolutionary creationist. After studying it some more, I became an unbeliever (though that wasn’t the only reason).

    I am sympathetic to those who suggest that evolution presents significant theological challenges to the traditional Christian narrative. I also think it is damaging to faith to insist that a YEC view is the best or only correct Christian view, when it is so clearly scientifically untenable. It’s a conundrum.

  20. First time commenter, long time lurker. Thank you so much for sharing these links. I know that AIG absolutely is pushing people away from the church, because I am one of those being pushed. I grew up in the SBC and have known many wonderful people in the Baptist church. However, I find that many churches in my area have made this such a litmus test and are using teaching materials from AIG in Sunday school, children’s programs, etc. (I’m not sure if I’m seeing this more than others because I live in the deep South?) I work for a regional university in a scientific field. My children (pre-teens) love science, and I cannot in good conscience take them to a church where science is seen as the enemy. SBC and other conservative denominations are so dominant here that it has been very hard for our family to find a church home (for this and additional reasons) but we are trying.

  21. Once a Rabbi had a young man rabbi understudy. They were in the Rabbi’s office when in walked a man who told them what all was wrong with his wife. “You’re right” said the Rabbi and the man walked out happy thumbing his nose at his wife. The wife then proceeded to tell them all that was wrong with her husband. “You’re right” said the Rabbi and the wife walked out happy and smiling. Then the young Rabbi said “Rabbi, they can’t both be right” “You’re right” said the Rabbi.
    I have read volumes on both sides of this issue and let me just say that Theories are not fact nor science. I know of no one who actually knows exactly what happened tho they claim to have the answer and therefore I’ve decided it’s an issue that I am not interested in arguing about… especially as there are so many more important things to keep an eye on in our world today. This like texting while walking across a busy freeway. I would recommend to young people to observe that those on both sides (including and especially University Science professors) stop listening or thinking and with heels dug in will flunk you for not cowing down to their way of thinking and not allow you to question.

  22. I've been on both sides of the issue. I got interested in YEC as young as 11 or 12, read every book in my church library on the subject, even did a report and presentation in my public school in grade 6 🙂 My issue as a high schooler was that I felt that evolution was presented as fact without much corroborating evidence. I tried to keep an open mind in my biology classes, but whether it was due to poor teaching or a really cr#ppy (ed.) National Geographic documentary on the subject I remember they showed one period, I left high school shaking my head that anyone could believe this monkey cr#p. (ed.)

    Now in my 30's, I've looked a little deeper and I have no problem with an old earth or many aspects of evolution, but to be honest I care very little compared to my pre-teen days. I've never felt lied to one way or the other, I believe in the sincerity of both sides. I can see, however, how a staunch YEC teaching could sour church-raised kids on faith in general. The stubbornness of people drives me nuts at points!

  23. Dee, I am fairly new to the blog, I have found it refreshing and insightful, learn something new every time it seems. If it’s not too much trouble please tell me where you stand on evolution and human ancestry.

  24. mirele wrote:

    My number 2) reason is astronomical in character. It’s possible, in a dark sky, to see the smudge that is the Andromeda Galaxy, two million light years away. So there are photons that were emitted by stars there, two million years ago, and they’re hitting your eyes and giving you that smudge in your vision. But YEC would have everyone to believe that the entire Universe, light and all, was created one day some 6000 years ago. Sure, God could do that, but *why*? Does that not make God into a trickster?

    Of course it would!!
    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.
    I nearly wiped out a nice lady’s roadside vegetable stand, exclaiming “That man just called God a liar!!”. (Poor Mrs. R. would NOT have understood, so it is fortunate that I managed to regain control of my vehicle. THis being fairly simple when you put your hands back on the wheel).

  25. caroline wrote:

    First time commenter, long time lurker. Thank you so much for sharing these links. I know that AIG absolutely is pushing people away from the church, because I am one of those being pushed.

    Welcome!! I totally agree with you. (As my comment, above, may tell you, KH has been as poison to me, right from the 1st time I heard his voice.)

  26. BC wrote:

    I have read volumes on both sides of this issue and let me just say that Theories are not fact nor science.

    It sounds like you haven’t read very much, because theories are exactly what science is.

    Science is a method for developing theories that are useful at explaining the universe. They transcend facts, because they provide a framework for understanding facts.

  27. As most of you know, the YRR crowd has infiltrated even here in East Texas. trouble is, ALL these guys are doing a really good job of running off the youth from the churches they’ve been called to due to, well, several things, causing several of them to ” asked” to find new jobs, and being graduates of the seminary, ( the undergrad school) they find themselves going into teaching.
    Texas is desperate for certain teachers, specifically, math, and science, and with just a couple of courses and passing the science teacher’s exam, which pretty easy( the science teacher I taught with for 25 years wanted me to take the exam to teach geology/biology at the HS, he told me, he could prep me in about 3 hours to pass the test.) these YRR guys find themselves teaching science….and yes, they are all Young Earthers….and yes, these are public high schools…..so, these guys are infiltrating the school systems.

  28. caroline wrote:

    First time commenter, long time lurker. Thank you so much for sharing these links. I know that AIG absolutely is pushing people away from the church, because I am one of those being pushed. I grew up in the SBC and have known many wonderful people in the Baptist church. However, I find that many churches in my area have made this such a litmus test and are using teaching materials from AIG in Sunday school, children’s programs, etc. (I’m not sure if I’m seeing this more than others because I live in the deep South?) I work for a regional university in a scientific field. My children (pre-teens) love science, and I cannot in good conscience take them to a church where science is seen as the enemy. SBC and other conservative denominations are so dominant here that it has been very hard for our family to find a church home (for this and additional reasons) but we are trying.

    Get out of the evangelical churches today! It killed my son’s belief. ( He believes, but has trouble with anything to do with with church people, doesn’t even want to ) Find a liturgical church, have church at your home, but get out!

  29. Zooey111 is exactly correct…
    YECers have to resort to attributing inconsistencies in their logical constructions to G$d, such as in this case “G$d is testing us” ! I have seen similar things done a number of times… It really takes Chutzpah

    zooey111 wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    My number 2) reason is astronomical in character. It’s possible, in a dark sky, to see the smudge that is the Andromeda Galaxy, two million light years away. So there are photons that were emitted by stars there, two million years ago, and they’re hitting your eyes and giving you that smudge in your vision. But YEC would have everyone to believe that the entire Universe, light and all, was created one day some 6000 years ago. Sure, God could do that, but *why*? Does that not make God into a trickster?
    Of course it would!!
    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.
    I nearly wiped out a nice lady’s roadside vegetable stand, exclaiming “That man just called God a liar!!”. (Poor Mrs. R. would NOT have understood, so it is fortunate that I managed to regain control of my vehicle. THis being fairly simple when you put your hands back on the wheel).

  30. Wow! I skipped church because they were hosting a creation science seminar. I did find out from people who attended that carbon 14 dating is a Satanic deception.

  31. zooey111 wrote:

    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.

    OMPHALOS.
    First proposed by Gosse in Victorian times.
    Didn’t fly then and doesn’t fly now.

    And if it makes God into a liar and deceiver, so what? God is THE CREATOR, God holds the Biggest Whip (Eternal Hell), so who dares call Him a liar? There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.

    And Reality cannot be permitted to prevail over Ideology. EVER.

  32. K.D. wrote:

    these YRR guys find themselves teaching science….and yes, they are all Young Earthers….and yes, these are public high schools…..so, these guys are infiltrating the school systems.

    “Give me your children for five years and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”

    Come the Rewolution, Comrade…

  33. Paul D. wrote:

    Science is a method for developing theories that are useful at explaining the universe. They transcend facts, because they provide a framework for understanding facts.

    Theories are more than explanations. Theories are predictive. If a result derived from a theory doesn’t agree with the actual measurements, revisions to the theories are needed. This is how science proceeds. If quantitative predictions cannot be made what ever is being described doesn’t even rise to the status of a theory.

    Theories also lead to technology. Our solid state electronics revolution of the last half century comes from the application of basic physics (and a whole lot of cleverness in using the resulting computer and communications equipment). A telling symptom of the intellectual problems of the YEC approach is that they can explain everything but predict nothing.

  34. If they think radioactive dating, or more fundamentally the use of radioactivity is of the devil, they should not use any medical technology that uses radioactivity….. ie X-rays, Cat scans, PET scans, radiatiation treatments for cancer, etc. Further, while MRI does not use radioactive elements, underlying principles are based on Quantum Mechanics which explains radioactivity..

    YEC, when pushed, admit that radioactive decay can not be govern by basic phyics… To explain what we find in the world some YEC claim that during or after the flood radioactive decay had to speed up millions of times!!! Problem is the heat released would boil off all the oceans!!

    Mark wrote:

    Wow! I skipped church because they were hosting a creation science seminar. I did find out from people who attended that carbon 14 dating is a Satanic deception.

  35. Beth wrote:

    I am sympathetic to those who suggest that evolution presents significant theological challenges to the traditional Christian narrative. I also think it is damaging to faith to insist that a YEC view is the best or only correct Christian view, when it is so clearly scientifically untenable. It’s a conundrum.

    Precisely.

    If the creation stories in genesis are not taken literally, and an old earth does throw a wrench into that literal style of understanding of genesis creation stories, then what does that do to the concepts that man is made in the image of god (imago dei) and therefore worth of respect or that man is the peak achievement of the biosphere (in charge therefore) or that man has a responsibility to the earth (tend the garden). More than that. If death existed before man based on fossil evidence in light of an old earth, how can christianity say that there was no death before the fall and that death was caused by/punishment for sin; in other words does it not trash the idea of original sin as currently understood by christianity. If death and disease and dangerous pregnancy/childbirth and the chaos in creation including the weeds in the field are not part of a curse from god in retaliation for man’s sin, then why did Jesus die–if not as a solution for the curse as prophesied to Eve in the garden. And how does one justify patriarchy if not for the creation stories.

    And, if a literal understanding of the creation stories is shown to be a false understanding, does this not raise questions about various other ancient hebrew stories in the earlier chapters of genesis; what about inerrancy and infallibility of scripture in toto?

    Eventually, and here is a big issue, if one cannot believe the bible literally and accept the interpretations and understandings of christianity based on the bible how can one even know if there is a god. Fear of all fears, are we alone and perhaps abandoned in the universe.

    Here I stand: the earth is old, many of the traditional religious ideas need to be re-examined–not avoided, and this issue if a major fault line through current christian thinking.

    BTW: my educational background is mostly science and not religion, and I am a believer in Jesus. One can get here from there.

  36. Jeff Chalmers wrote:

    YEC, when pushed, admit that radioactive decay can not be govern by basic phyics… To explain what we find in the world some YEC claim that during or after the flood radioactive decay had to speed up millions of times!!! Problem is the heat released would boil off all the oceans!!

    “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”
    “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”
    “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”

  37. @ okrapod:
    Love this comment. Perhaps tradition has ruined the real beauty and message of scripture by insisting it be read like a text book or Manual? I am too ignorant to discuss science but I can question and discuss ancient communication genres which is where I began. I could not reckon the Jesus of the NT with the God of the OT so I started there.

  38. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    One of which got some coverage here at Wartburg Watch last July:

    HUG thanks for referencing this. You’re right, the fall out from genomics is just starting and will profoundly affect all of us in the coming decades. I’ve recently seen reference to curing inherited genetic disease in a mouse model and the importance of preimplantation genetic testing.

    A big problem with the YEC and anti-evolution Christians is that their views call the warnings of the rest of us Christians into doubt. There is an incredible need for moral input now and all, not just YEC, our voices are called into question.

  39. okrapod wrote:

    Eventually, and here is a big issue, if one cannot believe the bible literally and accept the interpretations and understandings of christianity based on the bible how can one even know if there is a god? [Question-mark added – ed]

    I’m guessing this is at least a semi-rhetorical question. Though as a scientific hypothesis, this might be refuted by more and better information – i.e., feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!

    Either way, the best answer I can give to it is: by hands-on experience. In no particular order:

     No system of belief in a living, reigning, loving God can be based solely (or even mainly) on a book that can’t talk, feel or think.
     Examine the claims made by scribsher and test them. For instance, “Try Praying”, as the UK advertising campaign urged; examine honestly what happens or doesn’t happen; practice stuff and see if it gets better / easier over time; that kind of thing
     Seek out other people who are also interested in finding out the same things and, in particular, those who claim some history of encounters with a risen Jesus; “refine” that company according to track-record of sanity, compassion and whether their experiences are remotely verifiable in a way that makes sense to you
     In other words: when people have experiences you can’t relate to or replicate, then by all means give them the benefit of the doubt if you can, but look for other people to hang out with as well.

    That’s worked for me and Lesley, anyway. But please let me be clear: by “worked” I do not mean it’s all fallen into place overnight. Lesley and I have both been Christians for nearly 30 years, and it’s been a steep, difficult and narrow road with a lot of trouble, affliction and persecution (as well as some compellingly exciting stuff too). At least that checks off a promise Jesus made!

  40. okrapod wrote:

    More than that. If death existed before man based on fossil evidence in light of an old earth, how can christianity say that there was no death before the fall and that death was caused by/punishment for sin; in other words does it not trash the idea of original sin as currently understood by christianity. If death and disease and dangerous pregnancy/childbirth and the chaos in creation including the weeds in the field are not part of a curse from god in retaliation for man’s sin, then why did Jesus die–if not as a solution for the curse as prophesied to Eve in the garden. And how does one justify patriarchy if not for the creation stories.

    And even more than that! What does it say about the nature of God that he purposefully created an earth full of suffering and death and that suffering and death occurred for millions of years before humans ever showed up. According to Christian belief, God is quite capable of creating without using suffering and death because heaven exists and God will recreate the world to be without suffering and death eventually. But instead, he created animals to rip each other apart and humans to be selfish and violent as well as kind and cooperative. It becomes much harder to make the argument that God hates suffering and death when it is a feature of his creation program, not a bug. The Bible can say what it wants, but the actual evidence in front of our eyes suggests that if a deity created the world, that deity is not particularly bothered by suffering and death, especially if it was capable of creating differently and didn’t.

    YEC at least maintains that God did not intend for the world to be as it is – it’s human’s fault. They were created as God intended but chose to sin, thus ushering in a world that needed to be redeemed. Why would God create a world that is suffering and humans that are instinctually sinful and then turn around and have to die to redeem what he himself created? Self-imposed capital punishment for making us that way?

    I haven’t found explanations for why Jesus died convincing under an evolutionary creationism framework. They have the feeling to me of being reverse engineered, like people believe that a generally Christian God exists but have all this conflicting evidence that needs to be reconciled somehow, so they do the best they can. I think Paul’s understanding of salvation is centered around a YEC view, and I think Christianity developed around that in ways that aren’t always apparent at first glance. The age of the earth has nothing to do with it – it’s all about the problem of evil and sin and death and God’s character. Evolution takes the problem of evil – a serious problem even under YEC – and puts it on steroids.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with believing evolutionary creationism, but I ultimately found it theologically unconvincing, just as I found YEC or YLC (young life creationism) scientifically unconvincing.

  41. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Generally, I am of the opinion that arguing over mechanism is not worth the effort.
    Some basics need to be believed theologically for certain doctrines to work–e.g. a literal Adam and Eve (a la Romans 5 federalism), God created the world, etc.–and beyond that, I think it is okay to allow for variation in belief about the “How?”
    I rather die in ditch over Jesus’ literal death and resurrection than argue over evolution versus young earth Creationism. But that’s me…

    Yes I agree with you. It does not matter to me exactly how God created everything, only that I know he did and it did not just happen by accident. I do find it interesting to learn about and discus all that is mentioned in this post and other theories. It is sad that people have chosen to leave their faith because someone told them They can’t be a Christian if they don’t believe in the literal 7/24 he days of creation.
    Thank for this post.

  42. Yup

    OldJohnJ wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    One of which got some coverage here at Wartburg Watch last July:

    HUG thanks for referencing this. You’re right, the fall out from genomics is just starting and will profoundly affect all of us in the coming decades. I’ve recently seen reference to curing inherited genetic disease in a mouse model and the importance of preimplantation genetic testing.

    A big problem with the YEC and anti-evolution Christians is that their views call the warnings of the rest of us Christians into doubt. There is an incredible need for moral input now and all, not just YEC, our voices are called into question.

  43. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I’ve recently seen reference to curing inherited genetic disease in a mouse model and the importance of preimplantation genetic testing.

    Preimplantation genetic testing with IVF I can see as a really good idea, but then I do not think the zygote is a person yet. But, and this is scary to me, I can see the possibility of required by law fetal testing in utero with the already available tests with required abortion for government determined reasons based on test results. We already have this as an option, but my worry is the gov deciding and enforcing the criteria. Who lives and who dies by government edict. Like we have not learned from the past.

  44. Short off topic:

    I just made up a batch of cole slaw using the recipe which chick-fil-a just released to the public as they discontinued cole slaw from their menu.

    The dressing tastes a lot like Marzetti’s Original except a little sweeter. I was able to make up a batch, however, cheaper than I could have bought the Marzetti’s.

    Like Nick says: IHTIH

  45. @ Beth:
    I am not sure it helps to have an angry God who must pour out His wrath on someone to be appeased. So he does it on a lesser God he sent as a human for only that purpose.. That is called grace according to many protestants. Or that this God created man ti sin to show his glory ands and every human is now born sinning and can’t help it. Or that God chose who he would save or damn before the world was even created.

    There are conundrums everywhere. My new focus is not to blame God because I think most tradition got Him wrong.

  46. Dee wrote:

    @ wl:
    I am about to board my plane. Quick answer. I tip towards evolutionary creationism

    It’s pretty much what I believe…

  47. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    That is some good stuff, Nick, but that was not what i was trying to say. I was trying to articulate what appears to me to be the basic fear of those who cling to YEC/ reformed understanding of inerrancy as the ultimate un-anserable question for them. I think that they have no clue that there are any other approaches to the Ultimate Question than the bible.

    You have made claims for experience, experimentation (pray) and listening to other people. I entirely agree, but I have had no success ever in any conversation at any time even hinting that there is any trustworthy evidence for or about God much less christianity outside of scripture–when talking to fundamentalist evangelicals. The closest they will get is something that they think agrees with scripture or illustrates how the bible is accurate and literal after all, scripture being the gold standard. I think that if they are forced to look at scripture in any other way they will crash and burn. Example: I read an article a few months back by one of ‘them’ which said that one should pray the scriptures, not pray extemporaneously, because the scripture must always mediate between God and man. Well, actually the author said God and women. So how would you tell somebody who believes that to pray if they no longer ‘believe in’ the bible as literal and inerrant and therefore believe that they cannot pray any other way?

    I do so want to believe that some of this craziness is confined to this continent and that you all have not had to deal with too much of it. But we have some really messed up stuff here.

  48. @ Beth:

    i cannot wrap my mind around theistic evolution from a philosophical position. I think that a lot of people cannot either but may be hesitant to embrace materialistic evolution not necessarily micro-managed by God.

    There are approaches that can be taken, all of them heretical from the standpoint of traditional christianity. However, heresy and apostasy are not identical terms. Personally I have considered a few over the years but with a lack of evidence to fall back on I accept what for me is comfortable but for some is not. That is to say ‘I don’t know’ but if God’s self revelation is progressive, if the scriptural statement that the Spirit ‘will lead’ into all truth (not has lead already) then perhaps ‘I don’t know’ is a valid theological position. And it is consistent with an attitude in science which is also that the ascertainment of knowledge is progressive, one concept built upon another (as OJJ said the ability of theory to predict) then there is a consistency here between the two. We don’t know everything, but we know more than we did, and we have some good ideas where to look for more answers.

    It is possible, for example, to think that Jesus died to solve the issues of sin and death regardless of what one thinks may be the origins of sin or death. It is possible to say that God has intervened and has promised more intervention (the destruction of the last enemy death) and that God is reconciling the world to himself through Christ regardless of whether we know what happened in the first place or how or when or why it happened. I have not found it possible to arrive at faith however while eliminating the possibility of the spiritual, that there is more to reality than we know, and that God himself can and does engage in relationship(s) with people-and apparently is delighted to do so. But He does not explain to us his every move.

  49. okrapod wrote:

    But He does not explain to us his every move.

    And in the Job story when God talked to Job he basically said what do you think you know and were you there when I did it. And Job clamped his mouth shut and proclaimed that he knew his redeemer lived and etc-his marvelous statement of faith. I think that is a huge answer. We don’t know either, but we can believe while not knowing.

  50. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    okrapod wrote: “Eventually, and here is a big issue, if one cannot believe the bible literally and accept the interpretations and understandings of christianity based on the bible how can one even know if there is a god? [Question-mark added – ed]”

    Nick wrote: “…the best answer I can give to it is: by hands-on experience.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I really like your thoughts, here.

    my motto is “hold on loosely, but don’t let go” (as the song goes).

    As I see it, basing one’s beliefs solely on the bible requires compromise (intellectual, logical, moral, i’m sure there are other categories).

    What’s worse is not being able or allowed to recognize it. Living with the barb of cognitive dissonance, and ignoring the discomfort. Perhaps assuming it is the experience of either “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways” (Isaiah 55), or else the experience of Jesus’ “yoke that is easy and burden that is light”.

    My hands’ on experience is that there is something/someone who responds to “Lord”, “God”, “Jesus”, “Holy Spirit”,
    -who seems to respond to my efforts at opening myself up,
    -and who seems activated by pursuits of kindness, selflessness, courage.
    -And who seems especially activated when I express myself back in appreciation for the encouragement and excitement of the whole thing.

    Psalms and parts of Ephesians & Collosians have been very helpful to me.

    Holding on tightly to all the ‘biblical’ variables and operations that yield the sought-after algebraic equality (see, I just looked up ‘what is an algebraic equation?’) is like holding on to the side of a boat, with a certain amount of desperation. it is an end in and of itself, and requires a lot of energy.

    whereas relaxing and learning how to move around and swim in the unproveableness and mysteriousness of me=human, you=God is kind of liberating, and lets me focus on kindness, improving my neighbor’s lot, making the world a kinder, cleaner, more healed place because I was here.

  51. Perhaps the greatest error committed by Ken Hamm and AIG is creating a ministry that exists in the silence of Scripture. The “upside” is that they can claim anything without fear of having Scripture contradict what they say. An unavoidable problem with this approach is that science is not silent.

  52. okrapod wrote:

    We don’t know everything, but we know more than we did, and we have some good ideas where to look for more answers.

    I remain perplexed that this is ignored in so many aspects of Christian education. From archeology to the printing press to science.

    Perhaps there is a real fear that knowledge will decrease belief?

  53. I typically file the YEC/OEC/Gap/Other debate into the same category I put end-times debates. Whenever someone wants to get into a debate over it, I put up my hands and say something like, “You know, there are some things the Bible is not crystal clear on, like (end times/creation). And there are some things the Bible IS crystal clear on: love God more than any created thing, love my neighbor as my self. I’m still working on those. Once I have them conquered, I’ll get back to (end times/creation).”

  54. okrapod wrote:

    I think that is a huge answer. We don’t know either, but we can believe while not knowing.

    Some people can believe while not knowing. (Isn’t that what faith is?) Many people cannot do this though.

  55. Making a nonessential (in this case YEC) into an essential of the faith is a hallmark of a lot of ultraconservative/fundamentalist Christian groups, at least here in the U.S. Those that I’m aware of also do this with psychology (of the devil), psychiatry to some extent, and any belief in continuing miracles, visions, healing, etc (they are strict cessationists).

    As described above, it turns just about every conversation and every inquiry into real science into a faith crisis. And this is where the damage is done. They want to believe in YEC, cessationism, nouthetic counseling, etc. fine. Knock yourself out I say. But don’t write me off as a corrupt pagan when I disagree with you. That’s what alienates even those like me who believe and makes you a bad joke to those who might otherwise be attracted to the gospel.

  56. @ Chris F:

    I remember when I was at McLean Bible a few years ago and Lon Solomon called the rapture Biblical. He then preceded to say if we didn't accept the rapture then we were emergent and he ordered us to get out of the church. Biggest pile of dog cr#p (ed.) I ever heard.

  57. One of the things I am tempted to do is to start a gofundme for Ken Ham. I’ve been thinking of doing it at my blog. What I have wanted to do is buy Ken Ham a one way plane ticket back to Australia….

  58. Thank you, If possible can you or any one else please tell me if in holding this view one must believe that men are descended from apes.

  59. Paul D. wrote:

    BC wrote:

    This is what I was talking about with those who have their heels dug in. First of all they slap with something demeaning about you (not knowing you) and then you get told gibberish that confirms what you said I said “Theories are not facts” and he says Theories… “transcend facts” “provide a framework for understanding (imagined unproven) facts”.
    I would suggest finding a good science dictionary and look up the definition of theory.

  60. okrapod wrote:

    perhaps ‘I don’t know’ is a valid theological position.

    It’s my favorite one 😉

    My downfall was always mentally asking, “Yes, but how do you know that?” whenever people made claims about God. The more I dug, the fewer answers seemed reasonable until I was left with, “I don’t know.” For me, ultimately even the claims that some sort of benevolent deity exists came down to, “I don’t know.” It would be nice if it was true, but I’m leaning towards probably not. I don’t know. I’m good with that.

  61. 1.There are very few of us who are truly qualified to discuss scientific matters. eg note the gobbly gook heard from both sides such as “flat earth Christians” who are they?
    2. Why would Christians choose numerous subjects to divide us unless they have misplaced priorities or are those who wish to divide the Christian community?
    3.Comments made such as “I lost my faith when I heard(pro or con the subject) lead me to suspect that perhaps their faith was probably on shakey ground to begin with or maybe it was just an excuse to jump ship.

  62. @ wl:

    I’ve never come across anyone who believes men (or women) are descended from apes.

    I think it’s fair to say that this blog is not about doctrine – what one must or must not believe. At least, that’s not why Deebs started it. At the same time, the blog does resonate with certain values that I, too, admire. One of them is that it is not usually anybody else’s business to tell you that if you’re X you must believe Y.

    Regardless of whether you’re Young Earth, Old Earth, or Middle-Earth, it is for you yourself to say what you believe.
     No-one has the right to label your, or my, beliefs.
     No-one has the right to pin specific beliefs on you, or me, because of our general beliefs

  63. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

     No system of belief in a living, reigning, loving God can be based solely (or even mainly) on a book that can’t talk, feel or think

    How can the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with explanations of all their works, be completely defined, explained, and contained in a book??? Yes, we should read the bible: trust, explore, and learn from it’s words, but it cannot possibly hold information on all of the things that make us wonder.

  64. Eagle wrote:

    One of the things I am tempted to do is to start a gofundme for Ken Ham. I’ve been thinking of doing it at my blog. What I have wanted to do is buy Ken Ham a one way plane ticket back to Australia….

    PLEASE ~~~~ send him somewhere far, far away from the Bluegrass state! And take his passport!

  65. @ Nancy2:

    Insofar as there are verses of scribsher that are “more important” than others (you might say that any verse of scribsher is either inspired or it ain’t, and if it is, it’s important), IMHO one of the “most important” scribshers is this combination from the end of John’s gospel:

    Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

    I believe that he is still doing many things that are not recorded in scribsher – which seems consistent with the fact that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

  66. wl wrote:

    Thank you, If possible can you or any one else please tell me if in holding this view one must believe that men are descended from apes.

    Don’t be silly. But I have known a few people post divorce who thought that their former spouse might have had some less than human behaviors. Some speculation as to where the offender may have developed those behaviors might have ensued.

  67. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I believe that he is still doing many things that are not recorded in scribsher – which seems consistent with the fact that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

    Preach it!

  68. ” . . . the same church were totally sold on the gospel being equated with young earth beliefs. Their oldest son came to them and said he no longer believed it. They insisted that he could not be a Christian and believe differently.”

    in the myth of the dragon of Silene, in order to appease him two sheep were fed to him each day … but when that no longer sufficed, they fed the dragon their children . . .

    fundamentalism with its anger and judgment has consigned many to hell in it’s imagination, but fundamentalists never think that all of that pride eventually will turn its venom inward on their own, even on their children . . . very tragic result of pride run amok

  69. This one was especially good. Now I have to worry about how to translate all this for Natalia. Personally, I am a rather humble person. To me, science is inexpressibly beautiful, because through learning it, I dive deeper into the knowledge of my glorious God and His loving power, which is my ultimate goal anyway. My attitude is that if God made something to work the way it does, it is incredible and shows His amazing care and brilliance and is just right, no matter what the poorly educated and worse yet unwilling to learn and evolve leaders have to say. Remember, His ways are not our ways at all!!!

    This point of view is exactly why most Evangelicals I came across say I am of the devil and hopelessly possessed. Scared of me yet?:)))

  70. I know this is the wrong place to post questions, but why does my comment show the wrong country flag? I am from Russia

  71. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nick: I think that people have reasons to believe what they believe and they try to understand the Bible. No one has arrived yet. I think it is intolerant to label Young Earth believers as wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc. I am thinking I agree with you! When the world is going to hell and ISIS is attacking Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, perhaps we should stop labeling fellow believers. This topic is a secondary matter and is not a “make or break” belief for Christianity. For that I’d go to the Apostles Creed. Let’s live and let live.

  72. BC wrote:

    Comments made such as “I lost my faith when I heard(pro or con the subject) lead me to suspect that perhaps their faith was probably on shakey ground to begin with or maybe it was just an excuse to jump ship.

    I am sorry to hear that you believe this. However, in my experience, it just is not true. Ken Ham says this same thing all the time to discredit decent people who have conflicts in this area.

  73. wl wrote:

    Thank you, If possible can you or any one else please tell me if in holding this view one must believe that men are descended from apes.

    From http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html the following statements can be found: The chimpanzee is our most similar hominid. Human-Chimp genomes 98.8% identical. For reference the similarity of two randomly chosen humans genomes is 99.5% identical. We are not descended from chimps. The evolutionary statement is that we share a common ancester on the order of a million years ago.

  74. wl wrote:

    Thank you, If possible can you or any one else please tell me if in holding this view one must believe that men are descended from apes.

    There is a TV commercial for Blue dog food which states that the dog is descended from the wolf and that we need to feed the wolf in our dog.look at me three pug dogs and get to laughing.Being descended from something does not mean that is what you are now.

    Did ou know that you share 50% of genetic traits with a banana? http://genecuisine.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-dna-similarities-to-chimps-and.html

  75. dee wrote:

    There is a TV commercial for Blue dog food which states that the dog is descended from the wolf and that we need to feed the wolf in our dog.look at me three pug dogs and get to laughing.Being descended from something does not mean that is what you are now.

    We have a Great Pyrenees. I think he descended from an albino wooly mammoth!

  76. okrapod wrote [in response to Nick Bulbeck]:

    Preach it!

    Don’t encourage him – I’ve got My work cut out managing his ego as it is. (That’s not to say it isn’t fun, mind you.)

    Best regards,
    God

  77. Eliza wrote:

    This point of view is exactly why most Evangelicals I came across say I am of the devil and hopelessly possessed. Scared of me yet?:)))

    On the contrary, Eliza, welcome to the club!

  78. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
    <blockquote I am someone that was raised in a church, and a General Association of Baptist Churches (GRABC) High school, told taught YEC was the only WAY,

    I, like you, am the product of a Christian School – Valley Christian in San Jose and instead of GARB; a Conservative Baptist church – and oh my gosh, I just looked you up and it says you are from Concord – that means you went to our arch-rival in the Christian Schools Athletic League – Regular Baptist (now Berean Christian). It looks like you graduated a year after me. I was the super-competitive (i.e. hot-head) on the basketball team and not well-liked by opponents. In fact, Don Menez’s father told my coaches that I would be a much better player if I became a Christian before our last game there – he apologized to me, I didn’t know why and when I found out I was fit to be tied…..but I digress – I will post my actual comment below…

  79. Wow – there is just so much here to comment on…..

    I remember Duane Gish speaking at our church in the early 70’s and assuming that ALL Christians had ALWAYS believed the literal interpretation of Genesis……

    I, like Jeff Chalmers, am the product of a Christian School – Valley Christian in San Jose and instead of GARB; a Conservative Baptist church

    One of the problems was the purpose for sending us to a Christian school (I started in 2nd grade and graduated high school in 1977) was to remove us from the influences of the world (Ha – fat chance). Even the location was cloistered – I grew in what would become Silicon Valley, and went to school in the Saratoga foothills at an elevation of 1500 feet (ironically the infamous San Andreas Fault actually runs through the site). My parents meant well, and I don’t regret going there (it was a great location and Santa Clara County now owns it and does the public school’s Science Camps there),

    Fortunately after many years I was able to get past a lot of that m Many of my classmates did not – at one of the reunions – many of them spoke of how angry they were given the fact they knew nothing of evolution due to being taught only YEC. They came from church going families and I know many drifted away (I did for about 25 years) due to the cognitive dissonances (a big part of that is Ken Ham’s apologetics – even being brought up with it – seeing it for the bullshit (pardon my French, but there is no other way to describe it) that it is. There was a comment earlier about stars being so many light years away (way before YEC) and the explanation we heard was this…….God made it look older than it really is – and even as teenager, I knew that was a total crock. It was also funny how the “Big Bang Theory” was ridiculed, but even as youngster, I could see that the start really wasn’t that much different from God creating from nothing…..

    The big issue is we were told if you don’t believe all of it – then you really believe NONE of it! Talk about guilt for being intelligent with a questioning mind. Then throw in predestination, and well, I must not be one of the elect! At 15, I questioned my Bible teacher (who I must say was strict, sharp as a tack and more than proved her love and commitment) that predestination sounded just like the Greek concept of fate – and the reply was “no, totally different as the Greek gods were false gods and we worshiped the true God……..that answer did not satisfy my 15 year old brain – and things like that drove me away for 30 years (even though I deep down believed, but with guilt for not being able to reconcile it).

    Like Eagle, I had a major crisis of faith – for many years – another one was that we are commanded to love God – for me, based on the interpretations I was taught of the old testament stories – I realized that I could fear God – but there was no way that I could love him – because frankly, if he were a human – he would not be somebody I would love, like, respect or want to spend one iota of time with (another guilt trip). Fortunately my brother and I had the same “crisis” and worked through things through a lot of talking and reading authors like Greg Boyd, Brennan Manning and Dallas Willard. End result is that my faith is stronger than ever, and I view God completely differently – through the lens of Jesus dying on the cross – not only for those who were crucifying him (all of us) but viewing us in the best possible light “Father, forgive them for they not what they do”

    It is ironic that they describe their view of God as a higher one (God’s lesser Glory) – when I look it at it like this – God wanted people to fellowship with by their own free will, so he put things into place that through the universe evolving, that maybe a place could come about where life could evolve to the point where there could be relationship with him – that makes me feel more loved and wanted. I would say not unlike when we decide to have children….put a process in place….they are born, grow to be adults…….I have never been happier than May 21, 2015 – when my oldest graduated from Medical school, has a lovely girlfriend (who is also a new doctor), and they both got their first choices for residencies) – sure the young years were wonderful……but the joy in seeing what they become……I can relate to how the Father delights in us and why my view has changed drastically.

    On a somewhat side note – I was just talking with an old teammate of mine today about this aspect from sports – it was far more difficult to see my son: 1) get injured playing a sport (and I had a total knee reconstruction due to a baseball injury at 20), and 2) give up the game winning home run with 2 outs in the bottom of the last inning of the championship game – than if I had gone through that myself. That provides me with such comfort knowing that my Father – grieves even more than I do – when I have tough times – how can you not love and respect a Father like that? Much more so than the one who says we are totally depraved and deserve even more heartbreak, pain and illness than we receive?

    I apologize for the length – but this really hits close to my heart.

    The other part that really bothers me is the need for certainty – and anybody saying they have all the answers, well I never want all the answers…..it’s stunting and stagnation of the mind

    Dan Fogelberg said it beautifully – the Higher You Climb

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsDBUX77G3g

    The higher you climb,
    The more that you see.
    The more that you see,
    The less that you know.
    The less that you know,
    The more that you yearn.
    The more that you yearn,
    The higher you climb.

    The farther you reach,
    The more that you touch.
    The more that you touch,
    The fuller you feel.
    The fuller you feel,
    The less that you need.
    The less that you need,
    The farther you reach.
    The higher you climb,

  80. Beth wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with believing evolutionary creationism, but I ultimately found it theologically unconvincing, just as I found YEC or YLC (young life creationism) scientifically unconvincing.

    Amazing. And I thought I was the only rogue and contrarian misfit here. And yeah, I’m one of those recalcitrant free-thinkers who rejects the evolutionary paradigm.

  81. Absolutely!
    Incidentally my brother is a PhD working in the field of science and a believer. He has an interesting take on things. I also heard a professor from the University of Bristol (England) speak on Intelligent Design once. His presentation was far more convincing than the Creation Museum, which coming from a British culture, I found rather culty.

    @ Eagle:

  82. Nancy2 wrote:

    My husband is staunch YEC, but I have so many problems with it, and then some. For the life of me, I can’t conceive of how God made Adam, then Adam named ALL of the animals, and then God put Adam in a deep sleep so He could make Eve, in that order ~~~~~ all in one 24 hour day.

    Another problem is, did God create the other animals before mankind (Genesis 1) or did he create Adam first (Genesis 2)? Young earthers treat Genesis 1 literally, and the days in Genesis 1 as 24 hour days. However, Genesis 2 is not treated the same way!

  83. Bill M wrote:

    I get frustrated when the outcome is insisted on with little regard to scientific analysis. When I find that proponents suppress rather than engage questioning and opposition I figure they are less about science and more about religion or politics and with some it is both. I would add that in the church suppression has nothing to do with Christ.

    Bill M,I agree with you (on this point) completely.

  84. Mike, you are correct… And I remember Valley Christain, I played soccer against them, as well as ran cross country against you guys. Don Menez was on my teams..

    Mike wrote:

    Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
    <blockquote I am someone that was raised in a church, and a General Association of Baptist Churches (GRABC) High school, told taught YEC was the only WAY,
    I, like you, am the product of a Christian School – Valley Christian in San Jose and instead of GARB; a Conservative Baptist church – and oh my gosh, I just looked you up and it says you are from Concord – that means you went to our arch-rival in the Christian Schools Athletic League – Regular Baptist (now Berean Christian). It looks like you graduated a year after me. I was the super-competitive (i.e. hot-head) on the basketball team and not well-liked by opponents. In fact, Don Menez’s father told my coaches that I would be a much better player if I became a Christian before our last game there – he apologized to me, I didn’t know why and when I found out I was fit to be tied…..but I digress – I will post my actual comment below…

  85. Beth wrote:

    I haven’t found explanations for why Jesus died convincing under an evolutionary creationism framework. They have the feeling to me of being reverse engineered, like people believe that a generally Christian God exists but have all this conflicting evidence that needs to be reconciled somehow, so they do the best they can. I think Paul’s understanding of salvation is centered around a YEC view, and I think Christianity developed around that in ways that aren’t always apparent at first glance.

    Have you read some of the early church fathers on Genesis? I can think specifically of Augustine. He did not take a literal view of Genesis. Yet he maintained a belief in the redeeming work of Christ. One problem, we have in evangelical Christianity, is that we have been exposed to a limited view of how we look at the stories in the Bible. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is actually a minority view in the history of the church. There is a lot more going on with the atonement (a lot of which we do not understand) than is taught in most evangelical churches. I think on of the reasons that the RCA has less of a problem with evolution than evangelicals do is because they are not primarily PSA proponents.

  86. Muff Potter wrote:

    Beth wrote:
    Don’t get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with believing evolutionary creationism, but I ultimately found it theologically unconvincing, just as I found YEC or YLC (young life creationism) scientifically unconvincing.
    Amazing. And I thought I was the only rogue and contrarian misfit here. And yeah, I’m one of those recalcitrant free-thinkers who rejects the evolutionary paradigm.

    Ah, then you can be Head Rogue Contrarian and I’ll be a runner-up because I do accept the evolutionary paradigm. I can live with being a Head Rogue Contrarian In-Waiting. . . for now.

  87. Will M wrote:

    Have you read some of the early church fathers on Genesis? I can think specifically of Augustine. He did not take a literal view of Genesis. Yet he maintained a belief in the redeeming work of Christ.

    I have read about him, but have not read his work directly except for snippets here or there. As I understand him, he thought everything was created instantly and did take the story of Adam and Eve literally, though not the six days. Believing in a literal Adam and Eve makes the theology easier, IMO, (but not the science). It would be interesting to know what Augustine would say today, given his desire to stay true to scientific knowledge.

  88. I agree/concur with Mike’ summary of his experiences growing up in a fundamentalist, YEC, private school…. And. for those of you not from the Bay Area, his school was about a 1hour dive ( no traffic!) from my private HS…

    Mike wrote:

    Wow – there is just so much here to comment on…..
    I remember Duane Gish speaking at our church in the early 70’s and assuming that ALL Christians had ALWAYS believed the literal interpretation of Genesis……
    I, like Jeff Chalmers, am the product of a Christian School – Valley Christian in San Jose and instead of GARB; a Conservative Baptist church
    One of the problems was the purpose for sending us to a Christian school (I started in 2nd grade and graduated high school in 1977) was to remove us from the influences of the world (Ha – fat chance). Even the location was cloistered – I grew in what would become Silicon Valley, and went to school in the Saratoga foothills at an elevation of 1500 feet (ironically the infamous San Andreas Fault actually runs through the site). My parents meant well, and I don’t regret going there (it was a great location and Santa Clara County now owns it and does the public school’s Science Camps there),
    Fortunately after many years I was able to get past a lot of that m Many of my classmates did not – at one of the reunions – many of them spoke of how angry they were given the fact they knew nothing of evolution due to being taught only YEC. They came from church going families and I know many drifted away (I did for about 25 years) due to the cognitive dissonances (a big part of that is Ken Ham’s apologetics – even being brought up with it – seeing it for the bullshit (pardon my French, but there is no other way to describe it) that it is. There was a comment earlier about stars being so many light years away (way before YEC) and the explanation we heard was this…….God made it look older than it really is – and even as teenager, I knew that was a total crock. It was also funny how the “Big Bang Theory” was ridiculed, but even as youngster, I could see that the start really wasn’t that much different from God creating from nothing…..
    The big issue is we were told if you don’t believe all of it – then you really believe NONE of it! Talk about guilt for being intelligent with a questioning mind. Then throw in predestination, and well, I must not be one of the elect! At 15, I questioned my Bible teacher (who I must say was strict, sharp as a tack and more than proved her love and commitment) that predestination sounded just like the Greek concept of fate – and the reply was “no, totally different as the Greek gods were false gods and we worshiped the true God……..that answer did not satisfy my 15 year old brain – and things like that drove me away for 30 years (even though I deep down believed, but with guilt for not being able to reconcile it).
    Like Eagle, I had a major crisis of faith – for many years – another one was that we are commanded to love God – for me, based on the interpretations I was taught of the old testament stories – I realized that I could fear God – but there was no way that I could love him – because frankly, if he were a human – he would not be somebody I would love, like, respect or want to spend one iota of time with (another guilt trip). Fortunately my brother and I had the same “crisis” and worked through things through a lot of talking and reading authors like Greg Boyd, Brennan Manning and Dallas Willard. End result is that my faith is stronger than ever, and I view God completely differently – through the lens of Jesus dying on the cross – not only for those who were crucifying him (all of us) but viewing us in the best possible light “Father, forgive them for they not what they do”
    It is ironic that they describe their view of God as a higher one (God’s lesser Glory) – when I look it at it like this – God wanted people to fellowship with by their own free will, so he put things into place that through the universe evolving, that maybe a place could come about where life could evolve to the point where there could be relationship with him – that makes me feel more loved and wanted. I would say not unlike when we decide to have children….put a process in place….they are born, grow to be adults…….I have never been happier than May 21, 2015 – when my oldest graduated from Medical school, has a lovely girlfriend (who is also a new doctor), and they both got their first choices for residencies) – sure the young years were wonderful……but the joy in seeing what they become……I can relate to how the Father delights in us and why my view has changed drastically.
    On a somewhat side note – I was just talking with an old teammate of mine today about this aspect from sports – it was far more difficult to see my son: 1) get injured playing a sport (and I had a total knee reconstruction due to a baseball injury at 20), and 2) give up the game winning home run with 2 outs in the bottom of the last inning of the championship game – than if I had gone through that myself. That provides me with such comfort knowing that my Father – grieves even more than I do – when I have tough times – how can you not love and respect a Father like that? Much more so than the one who says we are totally depraved and deserve even more heartbreak, pain and illness than we receive?
    I apologize for the length – but this really hits close to my heart.
    The other part that really bothers me is the need for certainty – and anybody saying they have all the answers, well I never want all the answers…..it’s stunting and stagnation of the mind
    Dan Fogelberg said it beautifully – the Higher You Climb
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsDBUX77G3g
    The higher you climb,
    The more that you see.
    The more that you see,
    The less that you know.
    The less that you know,
    The more that you yearn.
    The more that you yearn,
    The higher you climb.
    The farther you reach,
    The more that you touch.
    The more that you touch,
    The fuller you feel.
    The fuller you feel,
    The less that you need.
    The less that you need,
    The farther you reach.
    The higher you climb,

  89. Biblical literalism has become a hallmark of evangelicalism. Christianity is an all or nothing affair. Anything that refutes or disproves the bible is not to be trusted. I watched the movie “A Matter of Faith”. It was heavily promoted in my wife’s church. The premise is if you don’t believe in the story – as written – then you are not Christian.

    I’m not going to debate the science or non-science of YEC since it’s been the subject of countless books and documentaries (I loved the NOVA documentary “Evolution on Trial”).

    What this means though is we remove the context of the bible – the time it was written in, the circumstances and culture of the writers.

    So we take it literally. Including every passage where God decrees death for “moral crimes”, every passage that endorses slavery or polygamy, every passage that subjugates women. And for every passage that promotes love and kindness there is another passage that endorses horrors that harken back to the worst of human society – endorsed by God.

    Each time I want to move forward in faith, I reflect on this and it stops me cold. Every. Single. Time.

  90. Lydia wrote:

    Perhaps there is a real fear that knowledge will decrease belief?

    If you think about the song “Give me that old time religion”, that is exactly what it means.

  91. Eliza wrote:

    I know this is the wrong place to post questions, but why does my comment show the wrong country flag? I am from Russia

    You can ask here as long as it doesn’t become a long side discussion.

    As to why a particular flag shows up well we use a free wordpress plug in. It’s based on the IP address of the commenter. There is no exact rule for what IPs belong to what country. And so the table being used is not always up to date or fully correct. So at times the flags are a bit off.

  92. Mike wrote:

    I remember Duane Gish speaking at our church in the early 70’s and assuming that ALL Christians had ALWAYS believed the literal interpretation of Genesis……

    In her mind they likely all did. Because she likely thought/thinks that if you don’t believe this then you are not really a Christian.

  93. My SBC church started preparing us to defend Creationism just as soon as the youth group moved up from the middle school to high school levels. We saw Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism Seminar – twice. I still remember wondering how they arrived at the water canopy theory and if it would act as a natural greenhouse to protect the whole world and some of his quirks like saying ‘I have a theory about that … there was a flood.’ I thought to myself, “I must learn this, but I don’t have to believe in it.” I told myself the same thing on the first day of school.

    It took us a few weeks to get into the Evolution chapter at school. I already knew that nobody else from my youth group had been in my class, so there was no pressure to stand up and have to defend Creationism. None of the other kids from the other churches seemed to have a problem with just learning the material. Though the way that churches teach it, a good Christian would stand up and challenge the public school teacher as a witness to the secular students about their faith. Now me, I loved the sciences even though I was bad at math (whoever heard of a modern scientist who failed algebra?); I took all the courses my school offered on the subject because I loved learning how things worked and how people thought things could work.

    I learned creationism, but I’m pretty sure I still don’t believe in it. I’ve watched how churches hang everything on a literal Creation (Genesis 1) but ignore the implications of Man and Woman’s creation is Genesis 1 in favor of the account of Man’s creation and then Woman’s creation in Genesis 2 as proof of a historical Adam and Eve so they can believe in Gender Roles, Traditional Marriage, and Pre-fall Headship and Submission. It seems to me that Genesis 1 Creation is a means to an end that is only useful so much as it’s as foundation for Genesis 2 and 3.

    I wish I had a stronger grasp on the sciences, but there’s a lot that I’ve forgotten and I know at this point I don’t know enough to win the science category on ‘Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” But I just have issues with Creationism and I don’t really know what to believe about the first few chapters of the Bible. The good news is that Jesus doesn’t say it’s a prerequisite for salvation, so I’m going to leave it as an unknown for now. I might learn more about it in time, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll believe it.

  94. BC wrote:

    I have read volumes on both sides of this issue and let me just say that Theories are not fact nor science.

    Others have talked about theories and how they work but let’s talk about facts. AIG basically refuses to acknowledge facts they don’t like. Or if they acknowledge them they say we really don’t understand them. No matter what the evidence.

    The real killer for AIG for me is this from their statement of faith.

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    What this really means but is not written is that “We (AIG) have interpreted the Bible without error and thus we’re right and you’re wrong no matter what you find, show me, etc…”

    The reason I bring this up is that there are a LOT of facts out there that lead to a refutation of AIG “science”. But with that statement of faith they get to just ignore and/or reject those facts.

  95. okrapod wrote:

    Eventually, and here is a big issue, if one cannot believe the bible literally and accept the interpretations and understandings of christianity based on the bible how can one even know if there is a god. Fear of all fears, are we alone and perhaps abandoned in the universe.

    ***
    I think we have to remember that in the ancient world, ambiguity about spiritual things came with the territory. Hows were far less important than whys. There were even mystery cults that never revealed their practices to outsiders so we know precious little about their rituals. They would accept their various stories without asking whether or not they were possible to be literally true and so they were filled with things like unicorns and sea monsters. We come from a world of data and fact, mystery does not suit us so we can’t imagine having a faith that allows for contradictions to be par for the course, which was a frequent reality in the ancient world that never posed any deep theological problems. After all, if one god doesn’t suit you, there’s always another that’s more honest than the last.

  96. NC Now wrote:

    What this really means but is not written is that “We (AIG) have interpreted the Bible without error and thus we’re right and you’re wrong no matter what you find, show me, etc…”
    The reason I bring this up is that there are a LOT of facts out there that lead to a refutation of AIG “science”. But with that statement of faith they get to just ignore and/or reject those facts.

    It is this intellectual dishonesty, combined with intellectual dishonesty in other areas of belief that I won’t get into here because they’re off topic in the context of this post (but look up all the posts about David Barton on Warren Throckmorton’s blog for a recent example of this if you want), that make me feel like there’s not room for me in modern evangelicalism. I know that not all evangelicals are like that (it seems like plenty of you here identify as evangelical, for one), but it’s hard when my fellow churchgoers are all up in arms defending YEC, a worldwide flood, and all those other things, to not want to separate myself – in identity, even if I can’t easily do so physically – from those beliefs.

  97. Godith wrote:

    I think it is intolerant to label Young Earth believers as wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc.

    I’m sorry, but YECers are not doing the world any favors. I said it before but I’ll state it again, as far as I am concerned, YECers are *lying* about the physical facts in order to protect the inerrancy of the Bible.

    And I can tell you my public high school education (1970s, Texas) absolutely *suffered* as a result of YEC nonsense. It was a *policy* of the Texas state board of education that certain things could not be taught, including evolution and the Big Bang theory. It has a very real effect. People are not being taught the entirety of science, but are getting an edited version, one that does not actually match the real world. And that’s wrong.

  98. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Love this comment. Perhaps tradition has ruined the real beauty and message of scripture by insisting it be read like a text book or Manual?

    Not “tradition” per se.

    Chaplain Mike over at Internet Monk once commented in a thread there that he figured it was a one-two-punch of the Age of Reason and the Industrial Revolution causing a serious paradigm shift. Turning the Bible from the Old Old Stories of God and Man to an Spiritual Engineering Handbook of Fact, Fact, Fact.

    “His mind is made of wheels and metal.”
    — Treebeard re Saruman

  99. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I figure that 40% is just basic “operating system” and overhead.

    Along with a copy of Minesweeper and code for legacy dialog boxes that haven’t been used forever but just haven’t gotten around to being removed yet (like the font installation dialog in Windows Vista)…

  100. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    One of which got some coverage here at Wartburg Watch last July:

    HUG thanks for referencing this. You’re right, the fall out from genomics is just starting and will profoundly affect all of us in the coming decades. I’ve recently seen reference to curing inherited genetic disease in a mouse model and the importance of preimplantation genetic testing.

    A big problem with the YEC and anti-evolution Christians is that their views call the warnings of the rest of us Christians into doubt. There is an incredible need for moral input now and all, not just YEC, our voices are called into question.

    Here’s one of my comments from that thread.

    Given the past performance of the Christian Industrial Complex community, I’d expect more of the same. And I mean BEYOND asleep at the switch.

    As in carrying on with yesterday’s Culture War battles from the Christianese Bubble (“Just like Fill-in-the-Blank”, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!) until the GATTACA/Singularity/GMO society not only comes (before The Rapture(TM)) but is already a fait accompli, long after they could have given any input into what was happening.

    And then the Evangelical Leaders(TM) will react in the usual Christianese manner: SCREAMING purple-faced with clenched fists like Perry Noble straining on the can behind the pulpit, SCREAMING Denunciations and Last Days and Anathemas and God’s Judgment and End Times and God’s Wrath and SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! like Tony Miano behind a bullhorn, SCREAMING! SCREAMING! SCREAMING! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!

    And everybody on the outside (all GMOed, of course) will once more be amused at the antics of this latest Lookit-the-Freaks Reality Show. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh….

  101. NC Now wrote:

    BC wrote:
    I have read volumes on both sides of this issue and let me just say that Theories are not fact nor science.
    Others have talked about theories and how they work but let’s talk about facts. AIG basically refuses to acknowledge facts they don’t like. Or if they acknowledge them they say we really don’t understand them. No matter what the evidence.
    The real killer for AIG for me is this from their statement of faith.
    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
    What this really means but is not written is that “We (AIG) have interpreted the Bible without error and thus we’re right and you’re wrong no matter what you find, show me, etc…”

    Frustrating isn’t it and this happens on both sides of the aisle.
    my family attended a Lutheran church which wasn’t really interested in anything before the Reformation.. if they were I didn’t hear about it. I went to a Scientific and mathematically advanced public schools where I excelled in Math and Science. I went to a state college. How I found out about old Earth/young earth was from rabid science professors who were paranoid that any questioning of what they taught meant that you were attempting to tear down their fundamentalist belief system in theory of evolution etc. Upper academic positions were not open to anyone other than those who marched in lockstep with thought Darwin had all the answers. In fact, people were fired and/or not hired unless they were in lockstep with the PC scientific thought of the day. The words Scientific, theory, facts were used pretty closeminded and exclusively sprinkled around like fairy dust.
    I am perpetually curious and so I have continued my questioning studying all through my life and have really kept it mostly in the realm of what’s happening in the world of science. My growth as a Christian has had it’s own path and I am not so easily baited off by those who are hell bent to prove God doesn’t exist nor those who just want to have endless arguments. I am of the school that you can believe what you want to believe but don’t expect me to believe you.

    Sorry for those of you who had parents who loved you and spent their hard earned money to send you to a Christian school because they wanted your souls saved and didn’t want to lose you to the drug epidemic that continues to sweep our country. If it’s any comfort, public schools weren’t always the paradise you might have imagined and I got hollered at by more than one science teacher because I asked questions that had nothing to do with theology but did see the holes in their thinking.

  102. okrapod wrote:

    Here I stand: the earth is old, many of the traditional religious ideas need to be re-examined–not avoided, and this issue if a major fault line through current christian thinking.

    BTW: my educational background is mostly science and not religion, and I am a believer in Jesus. One can get here from there.

    Well reasoned, I’m glad you are back after a short hiatus.

  103. Everybody’s heard of Baramins. They’re the highest caste.

    I grant you that BioLogos is a cut above Mr. Ham’s theology (the serendipity of his name alone suggests some kind of Higher Power), but I wonder if it is not just conceding the really obvious problems, while obfuscating the more subtle ones, as a kind of marketing strategy. A more honest approach would be to admit that the biblical authors lacked scientific knowledge of the origins of life, and relied on mythological accounts (which are pretty nifty in their own right, and in any case not central to the overall message). But that way lies Unitarianism or liberal Judaism…

  104. dee wrote:

    Comments made such as “I lost my faith when I heard(pro or con the subject) lead me to suspect that perhaps their faith was probably on shakey ground to begin with or maybe it was just an excuse to jump ship.
    I am sorry to hear that you believe this. However, in my experience, it just is not true. Ken Ham says…

    Dee – I have some sympathy with the view that YEC is no real reason to abandon the faith. I’m sure other factors must be at work. Of course I am not speaking from an American context, this issue is not such a hot topic over here, we are more Laodicean!

    Genesis is not science, therefore science cannot refute it. Re-reading it again more recently I noticed it doesn’t date the universe at all. The point is that God created it all – the timespan and mechanism is secondary. The special creation of mankind is more problematic, and in this regard I still find YEC more in line with the text.

    Science deals with the natural world, and God is not part of the natural world. Science will never lead anyone to the knowledge of God except to the extent its order and complexity bears witness to his existence making unbelief ‘without excuse’.

    Isn’t this issue a classic example of the need for believers to read and think about a topic for themselves? Or to put it another way, AiG and Ken Ham will not constitute a defence at the end of the age for refusing to repent and believe, even though some evangelicals are not always wise in how they handle this subject, either by appearing to be irrationally anti-science or by being ashamed of the truths Genesis reveals.

    Ken Hamists might be more amenable to reconsidering their views if theistic evolutionists would more clearly identify themselves as (progressive) creationists, since a defining feature of the biblical God is that he is the creator, and he is not some vague theos or higher power or unkowable intelligent designer.

  105. @ BC:

    I am seriously sorry that this happened to you. Some years after I was out of school and in practice I took a graduate course in ‘evolution’ at NC State-a science oriented school. Actually the course was population genetics, but that is beside the point. The professor had a required evening seminar on ‘science and religion.’ I was so pleased with the result. Everybody was well reasoned and everybody was polite and respectful. The professor acted merely as a conversation facilitator. There were atheists and believers all present and everybody who wanted to say anything did. What most impressed me was the number (about a third of the class) who said that the both accepted evolutionary theory and also believed in Jesus.

    And this was a grad biology course in a state university. This sort of thing that I have described was what I have found to be the norm among people who earnestly seek truth, wherever they tend to fall philosophically on various positions. Perhaps I have been lucky, or perhaps I just write off the folks with personality disorders or the bullies as not worth my time to pay attention to-how do I know. But people who can be described as @#$%^& did not get that way by studying science-or philosophy- or history-or whatever. This sort is every bit as ugly acting in the pulpit as in the classroom.

    But, you know, it can be fun for some of us who cannot resist the temptation to chomp a chunk out of their behinds just for fun some times. Mea culpa. I do pray about that tendency in myself.

  106. I agree with, and mirror okrapod ‘s thoughts and experiences

    okrapod wrote:

    @ BC:
    I am seriously sorry that this happened to you. Some years after I was out of school and in practice I took a graduate course in ‘evolution’ at NC State-a science oriented school. Actually the course was population genetics, but that is beside the point. The professor had a required evening seminar on ‘science and religion.’ I was so pleased with the result. Everybody was well reasoned and everybody was polite and respectful. The professor acted merely as a conversation facilitator. There were atheists and believers all present and everybody who wanted to say anything did. What most impressed me was the number (about a third of the class) who said that the both accepted evolutionary theory and also believed in Jesus.
    And this was a grad biology course in a state university. This sort of thing that I have described was what I have found to be the norm among people who earnestly seek truth, wherever they tend to fall philosophically on various positions. Perhaps I have been lucky, or perhaps I just write off the folks with personality disorders or the bullies as not worth my time to pay attention to-how do I know. But people who can be described as @#$%^& did not get that way by studying science-or philosophy- or history-or whatever. This sort is every bit as ugly acting in the pulpit as in the classroom.
    But, you know, it can be fun for some of us who cannot resist the temptation to chomp a chunk out of their behinds just for fun some times. Mea culpa. I do pray about that tendency in myself.

  107. @ okrapod:

    Oops, I forgot something. When there is a bully it may be the pastor or it may be a pew person. It may be the professor or it may be a student. It may be a husband or it may be a wife, and not infrequently may be some teenager in an otherwise more peaceful family. It is not always ‘the person in charge’ who is being a bully.

    Christians are slap wrong when they try to intimidate their own people into acting like bullies at school or at work or at home. Being a bully is not being a witness for Christ. Being a ‘witness to your faith’ is being a witness to one’s own self, not to Christ. Jesus was not a bully. The bully in the situation is the pastor or youth director or parent who says to the young person that they have to go out into the ‘evil world’ and make themselves and the faith look foolish somehow while treating other people shabbily and this will get them rewards points for rebate when the time comes.

    We need a few more sermons on the foolishness of those who find themselves saying but Lord we cast out demons in your name, only to be surprised at how far that gets them seeing how they treated people. (And yes I know that is an over simplification.)

  108. A interesting discussion. We have YEC curriculum at our house and some of it is interesting. But my daughter has also read Origin of the Species, where she learned about the lowest evolved race on Earth: the Irish.

    Currently, we are studying the Gap Theory which was a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis for the first half of the 20th century. J. Vernon McGee, Scofield, and Harry Ironside were all proponents, which I find interesting. There is an old book called Earth’s Earliest Ages, by G.H. Pember, which we have been recently studying.
    https://archive.org/details/earthsearliestag00pemb

    My daughter has actually read it through and says he over-analyzes in places. What I found interesting is not the age of the earth, which according to him is indeterminately old, but his frank discussion of Theosophy, Buddhism, and the occult and how they will affect the church in the future. This book was published around 1890. So much of what I see in the church after being exposed to the New Age growing up, I think the man was on the right track. These Neo-Calvinist types smack of gnostics to me.

    Interesting to note also that in Genesis, only three things are mentioned to be “created” from the Hebrew “bara”: heaven and earth, whales, sea creatures and fowl, human beings.

    It also seems to me that YEC have a problem with when Lucifer fell. He’s mentioned in the Garden, but according to them, he fell while God was making everything. I find it interesting that some of those who hold to the Gap theory also deal more seriously with Satan (ie. Pember addressed Theosophy, specifically Blavatsky which claims Lucifer as the real god.) YEC and run of the mill Christians, just dismiss him has the boogie-man spirit thingy that either disrupts your Best Life Now or God’s Providential Pawn to test you. Satan is a spirit being of keen intelligence and knowing how he operates and his background helps us better interpret the fallen world around us.

    I enjoy your blog exposing Churchianity.

    “The church began in the home. It may end in the home. Many of our churches are turning away from God and the things of God. They are no longer places of delightful fellowship and blessing.” – J. Vernon McGee John II: The Gospels, 1995

     

  109. BC wrote:

    I am of the school that you can believe what you want to believe but don’t expect me to believe you.

    I have no problem with this statement. But implicit in some of your other comments is the idea that a theory is a very casual thing. Actually, a theory is a very strong statement and has implications well beyond casual explanations. See my reply to Paul D. above.

  110. okrapod wrote:

    Preimplantation genetic testing with IVF I can see as a really good idea, but then I do not think the zygote is a person yet.

    As I said in my referenced genetic engineering guest post referenced by HUG I see no intellectually defensible place for make a person/nonperson or life/nonlife decision except before/after conception. Once a point after conception is defined it will gradually drift later and later in life. This is already happening: Planned Parenthood. Your concerns about government forced abortion are well considered.

  111. “They insisted that he could not be a Christian and believe differently. So, the son rejected the entire faith.”

    this is what broke my eleven year old son’s faith. A Beka “science” books actually state this out loud, as in, “All Christians agree” with the YEC position. My sixth grade son read that in his textbook, said. “Well. I guess I’m NOT a Christian after all.”

    I have spent 4 years working to rebuild the faith that was shattered by this unbiblical equation of 6 Day Creation & the actual GOSPEL. I occasionally like to imagine the text book authors having to explain it all to Jesus, with the (probably) thousands of kids they push away.

    (He is recently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, or mild autism. This condition often makes it difficult to dismiss those kinds of statements from authority, or to understand figurative language.)

  112. caroline wrote:

    I know that AIG absolutely is pushing people away from the church, because I am one of those being pushed. I grew up in the SBC and have known many wonderful people in the Baptist church. However, I find that many churches in my area have made this such a litmus test and are using teaching materials from AIG in Sunday school, children’s programs, etc. (I’m not sure if I’m seeing this more than others because I live in the deep South?) I

    This bears repeating. You are seeing exactly what I have been seeing.

  113. BC wrote:

    I would recommend to young people to observe that those on both sides (including and especially University Science professors) stop listening or thinking and with heels dug in will flunk you for not cowing down to their way of thinking and not allow you to question.

    This is so skewed to one side. We are discussing biology here, not politics.

    To imply that “University Science” professors are somehow worse than any other group, including people like Ken Ham is silly. Yes, most *University Science* professors believe in an old earth including Christian *University Science* professors. There is a reason for that. When people actually study science as opposed to pontificating about science, they see the truth that is staring them in the face.

    And yes, God is present in that truth.

  114. @ K.D.:
    Ken Ham has no training beyond an undergraduate degree in science. Yet he is preaching barmaids like he truly understands what he is talking about.

  115. Mark wrote:

    I did find out from people who attended that carbon 14 dating is a Satanic deception.

    Best laugh of the day for me. Let me add that some people believe that fossils were also planted by Satan. Forget all the sins in the Bible that Satan could enflame. He is more interested in tricking us about the date of the world.

  116. republican mother wrote:

    A interesting discussion. We have YEC curriculum at our house and some of it is interesting. But my daughter has also read Origin of the Species, where she learned about the lowest evolved race on Earth: the Irish.

     

    And Darwin might have been right….you haven’t met my O’Sullivan side of the family have you? 😉

  117. Beth wrote:

    According to Christian belief, God is quite capable of creating without using suffering and death because heaven exists and God will recreate the world to be without suffering and death eventually. But instead, he created animals to rip each other apart and humans to be selfish and violent as well as kind and cooperative. It becomes much harder to make the argument that God hates suffering and death when it is a feature of his creation program, not a bug.

    Then we have a problem. God in the Old Testament called for the Israelites to kill not only the soldiers of pagan groups but the babies and even the horses. Think about it. Horses? They can’t think and cannot sin like humans. Yet he wanted them to be destroyed. And the babies? Little babies?

    This is a God that does not seem to have any trouble whatsoever with death and destruction. I believe the Calvinists like to focus on the wrath of God.

    Also, did tigers suddenly grew teeth for mangling and claws for killing the day Eve ate the apple? How did they even know about death prior to the apple? God warned them that they would surely die when they ate the from the tree.

    I have lots and lots of questions about that time.

  118. @ K.D.:

    Oh wait right there. Sure and was it not my own grandmother who carried an Irish name. Of course she could be a bit much to deal with they told me, but she came by it honestly.

  119. dee wrote:

    Yes, most *University Science* professors believe in an old earth including Christian *University Science* professors.

    An interesting choice of verb!

    Perhaps it needs stating that God alone knows with absolute certainty how old the universe and earth really are. I’m not convinced he has explicitly revealed this – this is largely what the debate is – or should be – about.

    Do you see some parallel between ‘day’ in Genesis and ‘how long a thousand years is’ in Revelation? Regarding the latter, differing views are not usually regarded as arbitrators of who really believes. I’m convinced both books are the word of God, who never lies, but is a precise understanding of the time element the purpose of the relevant passages?

    Sorry, but David Pawson has done some excellent discussions on Genesis, and the implications of the various views. I’m not sure I know of anyone more keen on getting evangelicals back to a thinking understanding of the bible, and at the end of talking about the age of the earth said “Does it really matter”?

    I reckon the attitude problem exhibited by Christians with divergent views on this does great damage to the witness of the church. The one thing that really impressed me with Hugh Ross when I ‘visited’ was his attitude, which seemed to me to be exemplary.

  120. okrapod wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    Oh wait right there. Sure and was it not my own grandmother who carried an Irish name. Of course she could be a bit much to deal with they told me, but she came by it honestly.

    And I’m still sort of a Hibernophile/ Anglophile/ whatever the term for being pro-Scottish is… ( sort of odd combo I know….) but my Irish side, whew, rough bunch…

  121. Greaves wrote:

    (He is recently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, or mild autism. This condition often makes it difficult to dismiss those kinds of statements from authority, or to understand figurative language.)

    Long ago before she went to the Dark Side with Darth ToJo, RHE had an interview with an Aspie on her blog. One sidebar was that Aspies should NOT get involved in “certain types of religion” (hyper-literalism and Fundamentalism) because they are DESTRUCTIVE when mixed with the way an Aspie’s brain works.

    I have long suspected I’m right at the low end of the Aspie spectrum — I show some of the signs but not all — and one of my writing partners shows most all the characteristics.

  122. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Once a point after conception is defined it will gradually drift later and later in life. This is already happening: Planned Parenthood.

    Planned Parenthood whose founder was up to her eyebrows in the (very Fashionable at the time) Eugenics Movement. (Which was mixed with Victorian Scientific Racism.)

    “Only Perfect Seed Must Be Sown!”
    “Life to the Fit — Extinction to the Unfit!”

    We have Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and the National Socialists to thank for discrediting Eugenics. If the NSDAP hadn’t taken Eugenics and ACTED on it to the max, Eugenics and Master Race Theory would still be respectable mainstream science.

  123. okrapod wrote:

    . And Job clamped his mouth shut and proclaimed that he knew his redeemer lived and etc-his marvelous statement of faith. I think that is a huge answer. We don’t know either, but we can believe while not knowing.

    However, God says we can learn from observing his creation. Look at how much we know now that the ancients did not know. Take DNA for example. That opens up the world of genetics. Have you seen those commercials where you can send your DNA and find out if you are German or Scottish?

    Did you know that they tested the DNA of some of the rabbis from the Lubavitchers who claim to be descended from the Levite priesthood ad the evidence points that way?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180600/

    There is much we can know and much that we don’t know that one day we will know. God does not hide from us in his creation. He allows us to be discoverers of how He did things.

    What we will never truly understand is how God created Ex Nihilo but we can learn much about after the fact.

  124. WillysJeepMan wrote:

    he “upside” is that they can claim anything without fear of having Scripture contradict what they say. An unavoidable problem with this approach is that science is not silent.

    Darn straight!

  125. John wrote:

    They want to believe in YEC, cessationism, nouthetic counseling, etc. fine. Knock yourself out I say. But don’t write me off as a corrupt pagan when I disagree with you. That’s what alienates even those like me who believe and makes you a bad joke to those who might otherwise be attracted to the gospel.

    Excellent retort!

  126. @ Eliza:
    Hi Eliza

    For those of you who do not remember, Eliza and Natalia are our good friends from Russia. I am thrilled that they are commenting here.

    Dee

  127. BC wrote:

    University Science professors) stop listening or thinking and with heels dug in will flunk you for not cowing down to their way of thinking and not allow you to question.

    BC, most ‘university professors’ don’t care what students believe about anything. They just tell you: these are the answers I want to see on a test.”

  128. Ken wrote:

    Dee – I have some sympathy with the view that YEC is no real reason to abandon the faith. I’m sure other factors must be at work.

    Here is what disturbs me about those who claim that people don’t abandon the faith when they are cruelly treated or are taught things that are wrong. It shields us as Christians for having to take responsibility for our actions and words towards others.

    I have been writing this blog for almost 7 years. I can testify to the story after story that I have heard of people leaving the faith because of poor teaching, outright lies and abuse. Yet each and every time we discuss this, we get a number of people who say “People don’t leave the faith over that. It must be something else.”

    I truly believe that all of us will have to stand before Gd one day and see how we have caused others to find Christianity a difficult and unloving faith to others and that means me as well. I cringe when I think of what I used to say to people so many years ago. I have asked for forgiveness many times, including times on this blog that I have been less than sensitive.

    So, I deeply disagree with you. People leave the faith because we Christians act like jerks and known it alls and that includes people like Ken Ham who will get his time in the hot seat as well.

  129. Ok, I haven’t read all the comments yet, but Zooey111 said:

    “True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.”

    Aargh. I have always had a problem with the idea the universe we see is to some extent an illusion, because God created it that way. If this is true about the stars, how could we know anything for certain when it comes to dating anything?

    I have not read the book Starlight and Time, which was supposed to be an answer to Hugh Ross’s Creation and Time. If anybody here has read it, I’d love to read your thoughts about the arguments made.

  130. nmgirl wrote:

    BC wrote:
    University Science professors) stop listening or thinking and with heels dug in will flunk you for not cowing down to their way of thinking and not allow you to question.
    BC, most ‘university professors’ don’t care what students believe about anything. They just tell you: these are the answers I want to see on a test.”

    Heck, I taught high school and felt that way….and got away with it….

  131. Ken wrote:

    Ken Hamists might be more amenable to reconsidering their views if theistic evolutionists would more clearly identify themselves as (progressive) creationists, since a defining feature of the biblical God is that he is the creator, and he is not some vague theos or higher power or unkowable intelligent designer.

    This is an example of not understanding. Earlier, I used the term evolutionary creationist, a term that theistic evolutionists are starting to use. Not one Christian that I know who holds to evolution believes in an unknowable designer and I have several in a Bible study that I attend.

    Have you read Francis Collins? He is a Nobel contender and he became a Christian while studying science. He is a Southern Baptist. He believes in a Creator God just as much as Ken Ham does.

  132. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Only Perfect Seed Must Be Sown!”
    “Life to the Fit — Extinction to the Unfit!”

    I do not think that this thinking has disappeared by any rate except there have been some changes in attitude as to how to accomplish this.

    If the RCC is correct that IVF is morally wrong in and of itself then that is one thing, but if not then with that procedure there does come the choice of which seed to sow and this can be determined with the currently available technology. That would be even without the ability to actually make genetic adjustments at that level. So how long is it before society requires diagnosis and possibly treatment at this stage with the criminalization of bringing to term a defective fetus?

    And there is already available information about the fetus in utero as to the presence or absence of certain genetic abnormalities as well as the ability to diagnose certain anatomic abnormalities relatively early in pregnancy. So the decision does have to be made whether or not to continue the pregnancy. How long would it be before bringing to term any defective fetus would then be criminalized regardless of the method of conception?

    I am thinking that ‘eugenics’ is still for consideration in mainstream thinking.

    And I am thinking that there is no consensus among christians about the ethics of any of this. And no consensus about right to die/ assisted suicide and no consensus about withholding of treatment based on several variables with/without patient consent.

    So-happy new year to us all. This will all be addressed more and more in the coming decade.

  133. Update

    Please keep me in your prayers. My stepfather has developed a serious complication that may require surgery next week which is a problem because he is quite weak. In the meantime, I am packing my mother in law (and pug) to bring her back to Raleigh in an all day drive on Sunday from Cape Cod. She is not feeling well and will begin chemotherapy on Tuesday. In the meantime, one of my pugs is sick at home and my husband is dealing with that amongst some other issues that have cropped up.

    Pray that I will adequately handle all that has been given to me while attempting to maintain my sense of humor which has served me in good stead throughout the years!

    Love you all!

  134. okrapod:

    “I just made up a batch of cole slaw using the recipe which chick-fil-a just released to the public as they discontinued cole slaw from their menu.”

    *goes and checks*

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I love their coleslaw!

    Great. Now I’m gonna have to learn to make a batch every time we get Chick-fil-a to go. I can’t believe they completely ditched it off their menu. I can’t say that this rises to the level of the Original Coke/New Coke debacle, but it’s a lesser version. I’m sorry, but anything with kale and broccolini is not going to be the go-to side dish the way that old fashioned coleslaw is.

  135. OldJohnJ wrote:

    BC wrote:

    I am of the school that you can believe what you want to believe but don’t expect me to believe you.

    I have no problem with this statement. But implicit in some of your other comments is the idea that a theory is a very casual thing. Actually, a theory is a very strong statement and has implications well beyond casual explanations.

    This is an important point, and if I might pick up the baton somewhat: there are some widespread misconceptions among religious people about what science is and is not. I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that people don’t seem to get the fundamental difference between science and theology.

    A theological viewpoint, in Christian circles, is an interpretation of a limited and fixed number of verses (generally very few, in fact) from the Bible – perhaps with some tradition thrown in. Now, two people can interpret those same few verses in different ways; that often happens. When it does, they have several options. They can agree to differ, and go their separate ways; they can agree to differ but still remain together if the issue isn’t important enough, or they can bite and devour one another as they fight for control. This might involve calling on other fragments of scribsher, but what they cannot do is objectively test their theologies because that would imply new revelation.

    A scientific theory is an interpretation of a certain amount of data that explains as much of that data as possible, and ideally all of it. Now, two people can come up with different explanations – i.e. different theories – to explain that data. But when that happens, they have an additional option. They can test the competing theories by searching for additional data and, significantly, they can use those theories to make predictions about data that nobody has yet thought to look for.

    Early geologists (back to around the mid-18th century or so) believed the earth was a few thousand years old, because up to then nobody had seen the need to test the traditional interpretation of certain verses of Genesis 1. Belief in a 6000-year-old earth did not get replaced by malicious secularist fad, invented by people who wanted to get rid of God. Rather, it slowly collapsed under the weight of counter-evidence. YE theories have simply lost the battle to make novel, verifiable predictions that turn out to be accurate and useful.

    We hear a certain amount about the conspiracy to brainwash people into believing in evolution. But we have to look outside the church to hear about the conspiracy to brainwash people into believing that the Bible is the Word_Of_God. After all – that’s only a theory.

  136. dee wrote:

    Yet he is preaching barmaids like he truly understands what he is talking about.

    Don’t you just love auto correct? :o)

  137. dee wrote:

    Yet he is preaching barmaids like he truly understands what he is talking about.

    Now they might have reason to come after you for slander and all that nonsense . . . 😉

  138. About any claimed ‘right’ for some freshman to argue in class with the prof in biology 101. Two things. It is not right to derail class time from those of us who paid hard earned money for tuition for ourselves or our own children to learn all we could in said biology 101. We paid to hear the prof, not the freshman.

    Secondly, has anybody told said freshman that stinger quips learned in fundamentalist youth group do not constitute argumentation? I say to said freshman, first go home a learn a lot more about the subject than you know now and then sign up for senior seminar for majors or something and go for it. But until then sit down and act like you have some sense.

  139. Amen, Dee….

    dee wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Dee – I have some sympathy with the view that YEC is no real reason to abandon the faith. I’m sure other factors must be at work.
    Here is what disturbs me about those who claim that people don’t abandon the faith when they are cruelly treated or are taught things that are wrong. It shields us as Christians for having to take responsibility for our actions and words towards others.
    I have been writing this blog for almost 7 years. I can testify to the story after story that I have heard of people leaving the faith because of poor teaching, outright lies and abuse. Yet each and every time we discuss this, we get a number of people who say “People don’t leave the faith over that. It must be something else.”
    I truly believe that all of us will have to stand before Gd one day and see how we have caused others to find Christianity a difficult and unloving faith to others and that means me as well. I cringe when I think of what I used to say to people so many years ago. I have asked for forgiveness many times, including times on this blog that I have been less than sensitive.
    So, I deeply disagree with you. People leave the faith because we Christians act like jerks and known it alls and that includes people like Ken Ham who will get his time in the hot seat as well.

  140. Dee, will be praying….

    And if y’all will remember my son in your prayers. He travels to Japan on Monday. He has some job interviews over there. His mom and I are concerned….

  141. okrapod wrote:

    Pls

    okrapod wrote:

    About any claimed ‘right’ for some freshman to argue in class with the prof in biology 101. Two things. It is not right to derail class time from those of us who paid hard earned money for tuition for ourselves or our own children to learn all we could in said biology 101. We paid to hear the prof, not the freshman.
    Secondly, has anybody told said I say to said freshman, first go home a learn a lot more about the subject than you know now and then sign up for senior seminar for majors or something and go for it. But until then sit down and act like you have some sense.

    Why the assumption about stinger quips learned in fundamentalist youth group?(something I never had) Isn’t it hypocritical to encourage disernment and thinking skills in a church setting (which I highly recommend) but not in any other setting?

  142. dee wrote:

    I can testify to the story after story that I have heard of people leaving the faith because of poor teaching, outright lies and abuse

    You might have missed I reckon the attitude problem exhibited by Christians with divergent views on this does great damage to the witness of the church.

    Bad Christianity or church politics is a vital and difficult area. I would in no way want to let believers off the hook for a heavy responsibility here. You have spent years looking at abuse, and I’ve had my share and at times fill of petty religious hypocrisy, yet despite this we continue to believe. The reason for this must mean ultimately “church” can be no defence before God for falling away when we all have to give an account.

    Believe me I can understand people saying ‘Jesus yes, church no’, but in my personal experience with those who reject their former faith the reason has always been sin, usually sexual immorality (though not always).

  143. @ okrapod: I had profs who insisted on such things as Mao was a freedom fighter for the people. Or, that Marxism had simply not been implemented correctly. I had another prof who insisted cable would never really take off. And on it went. I was smart enough to keep my mouth shut because I was working 3 jobs to pay for it all and did not need the grief.

  144. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod: I had profs who insisted on such things as Mao was a freedom fighter for the people. Or, that Marxism had simply not been implemented correctly.

    KGB Native Agent Recruiting Profile “Disaffected Intellectual” — an Intellectual Snob resentful that his Great Intellect hasn’t landed him the position and prestige and power his ego demands. Easily convinced (often already self-convinced) of the Moral and Intellectual Superiority of Marxism-Leninism, the more extreme the better. Thinks after The Revolution he will be Party Commissar due to his Superior Intellect.

    Ran into them all the time during the late Cold War. After the fall of their Beloved Soviet Union, they went into other Causes du Jour — the popular one nowadays is Saaaving the Plaaaaanet(TM) from Global Warming. Or Islamophilia. But the basic Church Lady Fundamentalism and Intellectual Snobbery is constant. (Like MenaGAWD and their Correct Doctrine and Honorary Doctorates.)

  145. okrapod wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Only Perfect Seed Must Be Sown!”
    “Life to the Fit — Extinction to the Unfit!”

    I do not think that this thinking has disappeared by any rate except there have been some changes in attitude as to how to accomplish this.

    Especially now that the Shoah is fading from living memory and Genetic Engineering is becoming the Great New Idea. All too easy to point at those Germans over there as So EEEEEVIL — of course, We’re Not Germans So We’re So Much Better Than That. (This time We Will Achieve True Communism and all that Because This Time The Right People (guess who?) Will Be In Charge.)

  146. I have seen the “stinger” comments, and I have seen “fundamentalist groups” advocate putting out “stinger” questions… I have seen it presented that the person is being a “crusader/warrior” for JC. Ken Ham has called it “all that evolutionary non-sense” … pretty strong phrase to call the life work of some of my colleagues…

    BC wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Pls
    okrapod wrote:
    About any claimed ‘right’ for some freshman to argue in class with the prof in biology 101. Two things. It is not right to derail class time from those of us who paid hard earned money for tuition for ourselves or our own children to learn all we could in said biology 101. We paid to hear the prof, not the freshman.
    Secondly, has anybody told said I say to said freshman, first go home a learn a lot more about the subject than you know now and then sign up for senior seminar for majors or something and go for it. But until then sit down and act like you have some sense.
    Why the assumption about stinger quips learned in fundamentalist youth group?(something I never had) Isn’t it hypocritical to encourage disernment and thinking skills in a church setting (which I highly recommend) but not in any other setting?

  147. dee wrote:

    Have you read Francis Collins?

    Very little. I’ve mainly re-read Genesis itself partly because the science aspect is beyond my ken. Also listened to Pawson’s stuff. Also considered other ways of looking at Genesis by believing men.

    I’m afraid I cannot get that excited about it all. I can still understand why staunch YEC devotees consider evolution to be the road to liberalism and compromise, and I have discussed this topic with rigour and humourous banter with sundry atheists and agnostics for years, though they all coalesce around the fact that evolution more or less eliminates God, so being able to make faith irrational and defined as believing something for which there is no evidence.

    To them theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms, and therefore I am uncomfortable with evangelicals using the expression. Evolution can be a religion in its own right, worshipping the creation rather than the creator.

  148. Dee, you said:

    Yet each and every time we discuss this, we get a number of people who say “People don’t leave the faith over that. It must be something else.”

    I suspect what’s coming into play here is the doctrine of “once saved always saved”. If the truly regenerate can never lose their salvation, of course they will never apostatize. They must never have been genuine Christians to begin with. After all, a REAL Christian would never ditch the faith over something like YEC, they’ve got the Holy Spirit.

  149. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    This is an important point, and if I might pick up the baton somewhat: there are some widespread misconceptions among religious people about what science is and is not.

    Thanks for adding this. When I made my reply to BC I assumed a lecture from Scientific Method 101 wasn’t needed.

  150. I would like a dollar for every time I was treated as a pagan for every time I disagreed with a fundamentalist on a science question… It is fascinating how fast the conversation goes from a science question to “I can’t be a solid Christain by thinking the way I do”. And, most science question go like this REALLY quickly…

    John wrote:

    Making a nonessential (in this case YEC) into an essential of the faith is a hallmark of a lot of ultraconservative/fundamentalist Christian groups, at least here in the U.S. Those that I’m aware of also do this with psychology (of the devil), psychiatry to some extent, and any belief in continuing miracles, visions, healing, etc (they are strict cessationists).
    As described above, it turns just about every conversation and every inquiry into real science into a faith crisis. And this is where the damage is done. They want to believe in YEC, cessationism, nouthetic counseling, etc. fine. Knock yourself out I say. But don’t write me off as a corrupt pagan when I disagree with you. That’s what alienates even those like me who believe and makes you a bad joke to those who might otherwise be attracted to the gospel.

  151. Lydia wrote:

    I am not sure it helps to have an angry God who must pour out His wrath on someone to be appeased. So he does it on a lesser God he sent as a human for only that purpose.. That is called grace according to many protestants. Or that this God created man ti sin to show his glory ands and every human is now born sinning and can’t help it. Or that God chose who he would save or damn before the world was even created.

    Preach it Lyds! One of the biggest piles of horse poo-poo ever concocted (in my opinion). What parent among us would want to levy a punishment against our kids (as if all the human misery and suffering down through the ages is not enough!) for getting talked into something that would mean their demise over time by an interloper who hates them and is jealous of their glory and honor?

  152. I am so glad to know that the Beka publishing house can speak for all Christains on the position of the age of the earth!!! I guess I need to be intellectually dishonest to be a Christain….

    Greaves wrote:

    “They insisted that he could not be a Christian and believe differently. So, the son rejected the entire faith.”
    this is what broke my eleven year old son’s faith. A Beka “science” books actually state this out loud, as in, “All Christians agree” with the YEC position. My sixth grade son read that in his textbook, said. “Well. I guess I’m NOT a Christian after all.”
    I have spent 4 years working to rebuild the faith that was shattered by this unbiblical equation of 6 Day Creation & the actual GOSPEL. I occasionally like to imagine the text book authors having to explain it all to Jesus, with the (probably) thousands of kids they push away.
    (He is recently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, or mild autism. This condition often makes it difficult to dismiss those kinds of statements from authority, or to understand figurative language.)

  153. Beth wrote:

    Ah, then you can be Head Rogue Contrarian and I’ll be a runner-up because I do accept the evolutionary paradigm. I can live with being a Head Rogue Contrarian In-Waiting. . . for now.

    Pleased to make your acquaintance. My heresies know no bounds on both sides of the aisle. ===> (smiley face goes here)

  154. NJ wrote:

    I suspect what’s coming into play here is the doctrine of “once saved always saved”. If the truly regenerate can never lose their salvation, of course they will never apostatize. They must never have been genuine Christians to begin with. After all, a REAL Christian would never d

    There’s a big difference between ditching your faith in God and ditching a religious doctrine. Certain people just don’t get that.

  155. BC wrote:

    Why the assumption about stinger quips learned in fundamentalist youth group?(something I never had) Isn’t it hypocritical to encourage disernment and thinking skills in a church setting (which I highly recommend) but not in any other setting?

    I’d suggest that it’s not so much a matter of discouraging discernment in science class, as pointing out that freshmen who come in equipped with only “stingers” learned in whatever sort of church youth they attended, are not arguing against a solid understanding of evolutionary theory (that is theory of science as explained above, not theory as in “just a theory”) but merely against an overly simplified straw man version of evolution – if even that. I have yet to see any creationist material that points out the faults in something remotely resembling real evolutionary theory, and for that reason, said freshmen absolutely do need to sit down and learn real evolutionary theory before trying to argue against it.

  156. Ken wrote:

    To them theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms, and therefore I am uncomfortable with evangelicals using the expression. Evolution can be a religion in its own right, worshipping the creation rather than the creator.

    But you mentioned atheists and agnostics. Christians who believe in evolution do not worship the creation over the Creator so that point is moot. As for atheists, Christopher Hitchens had a long friendship with Francis Collins before Hitchens died. The respect that he showed for Collins was deep and real. So not all atheists believe that Christians who believe in evolution are compromising.

  157. Ken wrote:

    Believe me I can understand people saying ‘Jesus yes, church no’, but in my personal experience with those who reject their former faith the reason has always been sin, usually sexual immorality (though not always).

    Did you know that your statement is one that was used by a number of YEc s that I knew. They always pulled out the sexual immorality card for people leaving the faith. I have two statements on that part.
    1. Not the ones I knew.

    2. You are reading our blog. It is quite clear that there are lots and lots of Christians who stay within the faith and and still have issues with sexual immorality. In fact, I am having a good laugh over here in Cape Cod thinking about all of them starting todays with Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar and progressing to the pedophile pastors, elders, etc., pastors having affairs…need I go on?

  158. Josh wrote:

    BC wrote:
    Why the assumption about stinger quips learned in fundamentalist youth group?(something I never had) Isn’t it hypocritical to encourage disernment and thinking skills in a church setting (which I highly recommend) but not in any other setting?
    I’d suggest that it’s not so much a matter of discouraging discernment in science class, as pointing out that freshmen who come in equipped with only “stingers” learned in whatever sort of church youth they attended, are not arguing against a solid understanding of evolutionary theory (that is theory of science as explained above, not theory as in “just a theory”) but merely against an overly simplified straw man version of evolution – if even that. I have yet to see any creationist material that points out the faults in something remotely resembling real evolutionary theory, and for that reason, said freshmen absolutely do need to sit down and learn real evolutionary theory before trying to argue against it.

    A number of false assumptions here 1. that I was sent out with fundamentalism youth group zingers 2. That this was in a freshman class 3. that I was being disruptive 4. You have no idea what my position is 5. I maintain your right to your position

    I sure see a number of people with an ax to grind which in some cases is suspect. I am not a Calvanist. I am overly educated and sorry to disappoint you but I am not a flat earth crazy.

    I am a Christian and having lived, gone to school, and worked most of my life in the secular world and I am not an obnoxious nor an easily intimidated one. However we do seem to smell different because it does bring out the crazies on the other side and the crazies within the church.

  159. NJ wrote:

    I suspect what’s coming into play here is the doctrine of “once saved always saved”.

    Yep-and when they return they were merely a “backslidden Christian” especially if it is one of the children of the elect like at my former church. Tell me how to tell the difference between “never saved” and a “backsliding Christian.”

  160. The following quote is from John Stott who is one of the most respected evangelical theologians of our time. I would like to hear your thoughts on the statement below…
    “Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylized lierary statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth “day” corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the third)…
    “It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue (evolution) begin by assuming that the words “creation” and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naïve alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today…
    “But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation.” (John Stott, Understanding the Bible: Expanded Edition; 54-56)

  161. BC wrote:

    A number of false assumptions here 1. that I was sent out with fundamentalism youth group zingers 2. That this was in a freshman class 3. that I was being disruptive 4. You have no idea what my position is 5. I maintain your right to your position

    Are you telling us that you used to engage in this behavior?

    BC wrote:

    Isn’t it hypocritical to encourage disernment and thinking skills in a church setting (which I highly recommend) but not in any other setting?

    There has been right much talk about ‘discernment’ on this blog but to this point I have not joined that discussion mostly because it seems that in everyday usage ‘discernment’ can be used in a sloppy fashion to mean little more than that somebody has an opinion. So I have not recommended ‘discernment’ anywhere until we get more specific about what exactly it is. That said, I do not recommend that people publicly defend opinions in areas in which they have inadequate information. Once one has adequate information then I think the word ‘argumentation’ would be a better word. I have not to date found a church that fostered argumentation, or ‘discernment’ aimed at itself by the pew persons, and certainly none that has fostered the learning of actual thinking skills. I am not sure that SBC seminaries teach thinking skills either based on what I have read on this blog.

    However, I also think that it would not be remotely hypocritical to have different behavior requirements for church and for school and the work place and for various social settings and such. In fact, we do that in our culture for the most part.

  162. John wrote:

    Making a nonessential (in this case YEC) into an essential of the faith is a hallmark of a lot of ultraconservative/fundamentalist Christian groups, at least here in the U.S. Those that I’m aware of also do this with psychology (of the devil), psychiatry to some extent, and any belief in continuing miracles, visions, healing, etc (they are strict cessationists).

    Good point.

    I’ve never understood those people who combine YEC with strict cessationism. On the one hand, they take an ancient passage with “metaphor” written all over it in places (the idea of God “resting”, for one thing), and force onto it the most rigidly narrow literal interpretation imaginable; then they make adherence to that interpretation a fundamental of the faith despite the fact that it’s not even a command you can obey. On the other, they take clear instructions to the church in what Peter (at Pentecost) explicitly called the last days – and here’s the thing. It’s not that they interpret them metaphorically. Rather, they categorically reject them and persecute those who seek to obey them.

    It’s hard to think of a sub-group of professing believers who more clearly demonstrate the absurdity of saying I never “interpret” the bible – that’s for liberals and rebels. I simply take God at His Word. NOBODY, in heaven or on earth or under the earth, takes the bible “literally” without first picking and choosing which bits of it they want to take literally.

  163. @ william wallace:

    That is interesting. Homo divinus indeed.

    I am waiting for the discussion of why was there the serpent in the garden if God could do anything he wanted to. At some point we might want to talk about the significance of the idea that in fact the serpent was there and apparently had some freedom to do what it wanted. Surely there must have been some way to manage that situation to avert disaster. The story does not give much time between when God would have created reptiles and when some rebellion would have happened and the reptile would have been corrupted and it would have made a place for itself in the very garden which God had declared to the good.

    Unless this was not meant to be taken literally—ahem. But if Adam and Eve were literal, and they may have been since I believe that we do still think that bottlenecks in at least some populations have occurred, then I suppose the serpent would be considered literal also.

    If the good gentleman wants to think that Adam was the first modern man to be termed in the image of God, well, I don’t know what to say. These things are good to think about though. But his dismissal of taxonomy as arbitrary is a bit too much, since it is based on observation of biological characteristics.

  164. @ dee:
    I completely agree with you Dee & I think young people who have been told they are hearing truth, the real truth, absolute truth, are totally devastated when they realise that what they’ve been told is so poorly evidenced, & so agenda driven. It’s incredibly easy to see how being lied to/misled in this arena makes them doubt everything they’ve ever heard, & the credibility of those who told them.
    I suspect Ken’s experience is with a limited range of individuals.

  165. @ dee:

    Evangelicals always play the sexual immorality card. Any idea how much that angers me? Then you have the following…

    1. Mark Driscoll calling Esther a slut and calling women penis homes
    2. CJ Mahaney bragging about demanding sex from his wife after she had morning sickness.
    3 Dave Harvey disciplining people while his family was a mess and his son engaging in sexual immorality.
    4. Covering up child sex abuse…which is sexual immorality as well.

    On and on we go. Can we admit that there is already a lot of sexual immorality that exists. I am not saying that to rip on anything but to constantly say “well the person who leaves is engaging in sexual immorality” is quite bad, especially when the Neo-Calvinist are putting CJ back in the spotlight after he allegedly was involved in covering up sexual immorality.

    These cliché sayings really tick me off. Another one that I am writing about on Monday is another claim that evangelicals say, A person who leaves the Christian faith has never a Christian to begin with. Bullsh#t!

  166. I completely agree with Dee on this….. Questioning the “morals” of the scientist or those that question the YEC/creationist position is right out of their play book….. I have seen if used for over 40 years now…. To a conservative/fundamentalist community, showing that those questioning people/scientist are immoral, godless pagans is the BEST way to discredit their arguments and deflect the arguement away from the real issues… The lack of credibility of the YEC position….. I can sight specific examples.

    dee wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Believe me I can understand people saying ‘Jesus yes, church no’, but in my personal experience with those who reject their former faith the reason has always been sin, usually sexual immorality (though not always).
    Did you know that your statement is one that was used by a number of YEc s that I knew. They always pulled out the sexual immorality card for people leaving the faith. I have two statements on that part.
    1. Not the ones I knew.
    2. You are reading our blog. It is quite clear that there are lots and lots of Christians who stay within the faith and and still have issues with sexual immorality. In fact, I am having a good laugh over here in Cape Cod thinking about all of them starting todays with Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar and progressing to the pedophile pastors, elders, etc., pastors having affairs…need I go on?

  167. okrapod wrote:

    I am waiting for the discussion of why was there the serpent in the garden…

    I’m waiting for the discussion of why there was the talking serpent in the garden.

  168. @ BC:
    If I were making assumptions about you, your retort would have a point. I’m not going to continue this circular discussion involving an increasing number of straw men, and am thus now bowing out.

  169. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’m waiting for the discussion of why there was the talking serpent in the garden.

    I heard that he took up talking after he lost his job singing ‘it’s a small world after all’ at Disney.

  170. zooey111 wrote:

    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.

    So Hamm teaches that GOD Is the GREAT DECEIVER???
    Uhmmm hmmmm!

  171.    __

    “Supreme Creative License?”

    ‘The literal creation story ‘must’ go?

    huh?

    Q. If the biblical creation account is all a pack of lies about the physical universe, then why on earth should anyone believe it when it presents the way to heaven?

    What?

    A reader of the Bble encounters a refreshment of  hope?

    hmmm…

      The Bible tells us that Man was created from the dust of the earth at once, and presents no  specifc word that Man evolved from lower life forms. One moment he (Man) was not, then in a moment in time he (Man) was, fully functional, possessing inteligence, language, reasoning skills, awareness, and  divine purpose. 
      
      The God of the Bible presents Himself as an individual that can create matter in a moment from nothing, by His words, and form into any purposefully conclusion. 

      The God of the Bible also presents Himself as one who can bring the same matter to abrupt conclusion should He choose. Furthermore, at a certain moment in time, this Being says that He intends to do just that; to remove the old, to create anew where death, suffering, and decay will be no more. This the Bible presents as a portion of  our enduring hope.

    Fantasy or hope?

    —> You descide.

    Hope deferred makes the heart grow very ill ; yet faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things un-seen.

    All the best in the 2016 New Year…

    Jesus loves me this I know, hum, hum, hum…

    Sopy
    __
    Comic relief: We don’t get fooled again?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHJ9RMAVGI

    🙂

  172. BC wrote:

    I sure see a number of people with an ax to grind which in some cases is suspect.

    Talk about false assumptions.

  173. @ william wallace:

    I haven’t studied John Stott’s work on this (or any other, TBH) topic, but I think my position may be close to his in that the important thing about Adam/Eve was not their bodily DNA but the breath of life that God breathed into them, such that they became living souls – this happened after they were physically formed. It’s this marriage (small “m”!) of the physical and the spiritual that, if I’m anywhere near the right track, makes humanity unique.

  174. Jack wrote:

    Biblical literalism has become a hallmark of evangelicalism. Christianity is an all or nothing affair. Anything that refutes or disproves the bible is not to be trusted. I watched the movie “A Matter of Faith”. It was heavily promoted in my wife’s church. The premise is if you don’t believe in the story – as written – then you are not Christian.
    I’m not going to debate the science or non-science of YEC since it’s been the subject of countless books and documentaries (I loved the NOVA documentary “Evolution on Trial”).
    What this means though is we remove the context of the bible – the time it was written in, the circumstances and culture of the writers.
    So we take it literally. Including every passage where God decrees death for “moral crimes”, every passage that endorses slavery or polygamy, every passage that subjugates women. And for every passage that promotes love and kindness there is another passage that endorses horrors that harken back to the worst of human society – endorsed by God.
    Each time I want to move forward in faith, I reflect on this and it stops me cold. Every. Single. Time.

    Jack – that is the same thing I struggled with – for many years……and I have changed drastically in how I view the Bible now – with Jesus as the key/legend.

    Inspired – yes…..but what does that mean? Too often we are trying to interpret ancient writings with now 21st knowledge and wisdom, and in the worst case -literally.

    IMHO it has to be looked at in the context of when it was written (and handed down verbally before) and who it was written to. Compare it to other cultures of the time and it really is no different – tribal deities with every tribe saying “Our god is bigger than yours” – for me the OT has become more of Jesus’ “backstory” –

    A couple things have really stood out to me during my own journey and struggles – a key one being pretty much every time Jesus was speaking about the Old Testament (usually to the experts) he would say “You have heard it said…” or “it is written….” followed by “But, I say…” which I read as “You think you understand the law, but I am going to tell you how it really is….” and provide a different interpretation (usually going much farther).

    The Pharisee knew the law was 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself….I have come to the personal conclusion that the OT laws stem from an ancient tribe attempting to codify how to love God an our neighbors as ourselves….

    One that struck me (and helped lead me to this opinion) was the law deeming women unclean during their menstrual cycle for 7 days, and possibly longer (Leviticus 15) – which to me sounds more like a GUY who is afraid of getting cooties,because I do not believe God would really deem somebody unclean for something beyond their control (nature) especially in light of Jesus’ response to the “unclean” woman – sure I could be wrong, but I just cannot see that as God’s intention -because Jesus said “You see me and you have seen the Father”

    I think too often we want the easy way…and I think that is what has happened with Fundamentalism (which I think many self-described Evangelicals are) and pat answers are given, which so often just aren’t enough.

    For me, it is much more challenging – trying to live out a concept of loving God and loving my neighbor with general guidelines – but also extremely more fulfilling as it becomes more about making progress (becoming Christlike) and less of sin management (which is always a losing battle)

  175. @ Jack:

    So we take it literally. Including every passage where God decrees death for “moral crimes”, every passage that endorses slavery or polygamy, every passage that subjugates women. And for every passage that promotes love and kindness there is another passage that endorses horrors that harken back to the worst of human society – endorsed by God.

    New Testament believers, particularly the Gentiles, were instructed to not be bound to following Old Testament law, yet many Bible “literalists” pick and choose OT verses almost as a litmus test of whether or not someone is a “real” Christian. I might consider listening to them when they “make tassels on the four corners of the cloak [they] wear” per Deuteronomy 22:12. “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

  176. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    the important thing about Adam/Eve was not their bodily DNA but the breath of life that God breathed into them, such that they became living souls – this happened after they were physically formed. It’s this marriage (small “m”!) of the physical and the spiritual that, if I’m anywhere near the right track, makes humanity unique.

    I 100%, totally agree with this!!!!!

  177. __

    “Considering A Listen?”

    hmmm…

      The criteria presented in the New Testannt for the reception of the forgiveness of sin, and enteance unto eternal life has always been an action of confessing with the lips the Lord Jesus Christ, and believing in the  heart that God raised Him from the dead.

    Considering God is guilty of injustice is to not really know Him.

    Jesus said that if you have seen Him, you have seen  the Father, for Jesus is the perfect representation of Him.

    The Old Testament was penned (by divine inspiration) by Jewish persons for Jewish persons. The power of the cross; the forgiveness of sins fulfilled all of that, hence the New Testament or covenant Jesus brought.

    huh?

    The New Teatament now gives a pretty good idea of what pleases the Lord in respect to righteouness and holiness in pursuit of the life to come.

    …might wanna take a closer lõõk, huh?

    ATB

    Sopy

  178. Ken wrote:

    and at the end of talking about the age of the earth said “Does it really matter”?

    The problem is that KH is going around implying those who don’t believe in old earth are not Christians. And yes the age of the earth isn’t central to many lives but science is. If you’ve involved in integrated circuit designs, most anything with radiation, satellite communications, geology (thing oil exploration), and many other fields you are dealing with issues and, well, facts that lead to an old earth. So those people either have to engage in some serious cognitive dissonance or believe in an old earth if/when the subject comes up.

    And then you have all the people using the results of these areas, cell phones, GPS, medical treatments, etc… who are saying all of these things they use are based on lies.

  179. @ BC:
    Someone might already have said this in reply, but hey…

    In the sciences, “theory” has a vety dpecific meaning. So does “hypothesis.” It might be helpful for you to check out those definitions, and i know it will clarify some confusion over what people in the sciences (including svience teachers) are tslking about if you do.

    Fwiw, my denominational background is more like Georges Lemaitres’ and not at all like most contemporary YECs, although I’m Protestant.

  180. numo wrote:

    Someone might already have said this in reply, but hey…

    Both Nick and I have offered replies clarifying what a theory is but so far BC has not replied to them.

  181. zooey111 wrote:

    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.

    In a long running series, whether written story, TV, even comic books, one of the issues faced is to keep the characters true to themselves when changing writers. The new writers need to know the characters well and a loyal audience will know when the writer is treating a character capriciously. In the case of the Bible, it appears Ham is not familiar with the central character of a very long running series.

  182. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Both Nick and I have offered replies clarifying what a theory is but so far BC has not replied to them.

    The “it’s just a theory” canard is so overused that it is becoming the meme by which all dedicated YEC are known.

  183. numo wrote:

    I don’t think the Aussies want him back…

    You did hear about his little issue with a lawsuit back in the mother land.

  184. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’m waiting for the discussion of why there was the talking serpent in the garden.

    Because a part of the “fall” was that the animals could no longer talk.

  185. @ Jamie Carter:
    Ok, i think the thing about “today’s world” is actually not accurate outside of the US, Canada and western Europe, for the most part. What i do find interesting is that many prople in the world do not see an inherent conflict between belief and science, regsrdless of their religion. In the West, there was little conflict over these things until the 20th c., via the reactions of some ill-educated people who felt that Darwin and his successors were a threat to belief in *their interpretation of *certain small segments of* the Bible. Hence the Scopes Trial and evetything that’s come along since, though where i come ftom, YEC proponents were s tiny minority,prior to Ken Ham, et. al. This supposed conflict simply did not exist here until the 1990s.

    I think i am just old enough to have escsped the onslaught of it in popular culture. Thrn again, evangelicalism was not big here until recently.

  186. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Yeah, me too. If read literally (without the xtian theological assumption that said reptile = Satan), the story actually is very much like many others believed in both the anvient Near East as well as the beliefs, mythology snd folktales of most of the human beings alive todsy, minus those who are adherents of Judsism, ctianity or Islam. Further, the characteristics ascribed to God – like forming people out of the ground, walking with Adam and Eve, and making garmrnts for them – are (to me, at least) not at all of a piece with current monotheism, the incarnation of Christ aside. God is described in the ways that other ANE societies described *their* deities, as a pretty well corporeal being.

    But nobody in YEC circles ever mentions these things. I suspect that even the idea of Genesis being anvient *literature,* and therefore fitting into certain common literary genres of the time, is anathema.

  187. dee wrote:

    You did hear about his little issue with a lawsuit back in the mother land.

    And, KH is suing the state of Kentucky. He expects tax subsidy funding from the tax payers of Kentucky, while he uses religious discrimination in his hiring practices.

  188. @ OldJohnJ:
    I know… that’s one reason i suggested using a dictionary, since dictionary definitions are *very* specific in regard to specialized uses of words in various fields.

  189. @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that. 😉

    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).

  190. @ Nancy2:
    Boy, is he ever arrogant. They’ll laugh him right out of court and the capitol building, and deservedly so.

    Is he a US citizen? Or does he hold dual Aussie-US citizenship, or… ???

  191. brian wrote:

    I am crying right now, you do not know just how healing and freeing this is Dee. I really mean this I feel / think about being validated for the first time on this subject for many years. Again thank you. Brian

    Hugs, Brian. I am so happy to know how much relief you are feeling.

  192. Eagle wrote:

    One of the things I am tempted to do is to start a gofundme for Ken Ham. I’ve been thinking of doing it at my blog. What I have wanted to do is buy Ken Ham a one way plane ticket back to Australia….

    Would a leaky canoe be easier? It would be more his style……

  193. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    OldJohnJ wrote:

    Once a point after conception is defined it will gradually drift later and later in life. This is already happening: Planned Parenthood.

    Planned Parenthood whose founder was up to her eyebrows in the (very Fashionable at the time) Eugenics Movement. (Which was mixed with Victorian Scientific Racism.)

    “Only Perfect Seed Must Be Sown!”
    “Life to the Fit — Extinction to the Unfit!”

    We have Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and the National Socialists to thank for discrediting Eugenics. If the NSDAP hadn’t taken Eugenics and ACTED on it to the max, Eugenics and Master Race Theory would still be respectable mainstream science.

    Do you know, I think that might be the truth. Scary to contemplate.

  194. dee wrote:

    Update

    Please keep me in your prayers. My stepfather has developed a serious complication that may require surgery next week which is a problem because he is quite weak. In the meantime, I am packing my mother in law (and pug) to bring her back to Raleigh in an all day drive on Sunday from Cape Cod. She is not feeling well and will begin chemotherapy on Tuesday. In the meantime, one of my pugs is sick at home and my husband is dealing with that amongst some other issues that have cropped up.

    Pray that I will adequately handle all that has been given to me while attempting to maintain my sense of humor which has served me in good stead throughout the years!

    Love you all!

    Prayers for you & your family (including the pug!).

  195. Beakerj wrote:

    @ dee:
    I completely agree with you Dee & I think young people who have been told they are hearing truth, the real truth, absolute truth, are totally devastated when they realise that what they’ve been told is so poorly evidenced, & so agenda driven. It’s incredibly easy to see how being lied to/misled in this arena makes them doubt everything they’ve ever heard, & the credibility of those who told them.
    I suspect Ken’s experience is with a limited range of individuals.

    I think that you’re right.

  196. Nancy2 wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    True story: My 1st encounter with Hamm was on the radio in my car, when he “explained” (with an audible sneer) that the world was made to look old. On purpose. By God. To test us.

    So Hamm teaches that GOD Is the GREAT DECEIVER???
    Uhmmm hmmmm!

    Now, see, you had the same reaction that I had!! Its so obvious to me: the man is insulting the Creator of the universe, under the guise of “conservative Christian belief”. You just don’t do that! Not if you’re the real deal yourself, you don’t.

  197. numo wrote:

    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.

    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).

    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).

  198. I’ve been lurking and following the discussions and personal stories on YEC etc.. with interest.

    I grew up in a fairly conservative context here in Australia (Baptist church. Calvinist school), which could be best described as on the fringes of fundamentalism. Close enough to be influenced by it but not fully embracing it either. In fact, the general MO seemed to be to skirt around or steer clear of all the more controversial topics (creation, end times, who is actually saved or not, etc…).

    As I came to form my own opinions as a teen, it always seemed to be these very issues that all the substance was in. I always wanted to “know”, to pick away at these questions and explore where they led, and felt this made people either uncomfortable or even sometimes angry. And where they led, eventually, for me, was right on out the door. I went on to study and have a career in science and came to appreciate its generally careful, robust, provisional, humble, cumulative, and collaborative nature – all characteristics that seemed to me to be a much better model to find out about the world than insoluble arguments about interpretation of a book and one’s feelings about it. I’m not sure science can tell us how to live, but neither am I convinced that religion can either.

    So yes, studies of DNA, of development, and of fossils all point to the fact that there is a shared ancestry of all living things and this is very, very old. Billions of years, by the best estimates. Biological life is also extremely complex, and just when we think we have something sorted out about how it works, a whole new set of doors opens up. I fully expect this to continue as long as there are humans to ask, and attempt to answer, the question. If you let it all sink in, the magnitude and the complexity and the beauty are quite overwhelming – as is the glimpse that you get of just how cold and impersonal it all is. We think we are above it, but we’re not – we just have the capacity for awareness of it and the drive to compose beautiful songs to whistle in the dark.

    I’ll come back to another aspect of all this that used to fire me up (how we define who’s in and who’s out) in a separate post, but I wanted to finish this by giving a huge “shout out” to Mike for the Dan Fogelberg reference – this song made a big impression on me back in the days when I was struggling to break free and articulate what was happening to me. It is also one of the things that in my religion-free state still taps into a deep well of emotion. Another is this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GugzLSbOQE

    and another, strangely enough, is this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGLKhP_32xA

  199. NJ wrote:

    I suspect what’s coming into play here is the doctrine of “once saved always saved”. If the truly regenerate can never lose their salvation, of course they will never apostatize. They must never have been genuine Christians to begin with. After all, a REAL Christian would never ditch the faith over something like YEC, they’ve got the Holy Spirit.

    I think you are on to something. With this view the charlatan and followers are never responsible for how they present/ model Jesus Christ, in some ways it is just another form of determinism that ends up blaming God and/or the victim.

    I have been questioning OSAS for a while now. A few years ago, Bill Kinnon linked to a short book Scott McKnight wrote on the topic. It was interesting as he mentioned the same texts I had been grappling with. That is always nice…as in maybe I am not crazy or the only one? :o) In the evangelical culture, it is suicide to question that ingrained doctrine whether Calvinist or not. It is hard to find believers who will even discuss the possibilities.

    All this came about as I started to view OSAS as a sort of insurance policy to treat others badly.

  200. Nancy2 wrote:

    dee wrote:
    You did hear about his little issue with a lawsuit back in the mother land.
    And, KH is suing the state of Kentucky. He expects tax subsidy funding from the tax payers of Kentucky, while he uses religious discrimination in his hiring practices.

    He wants some of the tax breaks and workforce subsidies companies like Ford and others receive or they simply talk about leaving the state. Perhaps he should have started a Creation themed church for the tax breaks!

  201. Girasol wrote:

    the glimpse that you get of just how cold and impersonal it all is

    That thought is one end of a continuum of thinking/feeling about the same thing which at the other end of the spectrum is seen to be intensely personal and even ferociously so. The same process that gave us let us say birds of prey such that the squirrels in my yard have almost vanished from sight due to predation-that same process gave us the ferocity and intensity of the ‘mother love’ of the little english sparrow that almost fought me one on one when I cut down one large forsythia in which she had a nest and little nestlings. Predation is impersonal when considered as an idea that a biological organism is merely food for another biological organism, but a parent protecting its young is intensely impersonal.

    IMO we can see God as the impersonal prime cause of the universe or we can see God as Father who will go to incredible extremes on behalf of his children–or perhaps both things are true of God.

  202. I agree with this post, and say, IT DOES MATTER. This post outlines well the pragmatic problem for practicing scientist that try to live in the “evangelical world”.. further, while KH says YEC is NOT a absolute test for being a Christain, it IS a TEST for being devote follower.. so, anyone not a hard core YEC is a “compromiser”… in KH words.. not a complement label. (I can give you references of KH saying this for any of you doubters)

    Beyond the pragmatic, practical problem of living with cognitive dissonance outline below, their are deeper questions of “truth” and how we know “truth”, and where we get “truth”… These issues do matter.

    KH is quick to say retort “were you there?” and then makes a difference between historical “science” and current science. As a practicing scientist, I have NEVEr heard this except from KH. Further, there are many examples of scientist and companies using modern science to “predict” the past. For example, oil exploration companies use very advanced theories of the past of the earth, along with VERY advanced technology to predict where they should drill for oil. Oil drilling is VERY expensive, and they will not waste billions of dollars randomly drilling oil wells. While not perfect, this data and technology helps them find the oil… it is really quite interesting if you look into it. And guess what, all of these theories of where the oil is fundamentally based on a very old earth, NOT a young earth!! So, we come back to the problem that G$d is tricking us to think the world is old…
    So, I ask again, how do we pursue “truth”… if using these theories and then seeing oil come out of the well is not a testing of the “truth” of a theory, then we fundamentally have an issues with what is “reality” as much as what is “truth”…

    NC Now wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    and at the end of talking about the age of the earth said “Does it really matter”?
    The problem is that KH is going around implying those who don’t believe in old earth are not Christians. And yes the age of the earth isn’t central to many lives but science is. If you’ve involved in integrated circuit designs, most anything with radiation, satellite communications, geology (thing oil exploration), and many other fields you are dealing with issues and, well, facts that lead to an old earth. So those people either have to engage in some serious cognitive dissonance or believe in an old earth if/when the subject comes up.
    And then you have all the people using the results of these areas, cell phones, GPS, medical treatments, etc… who are saying all of these things they use are based on lies.

  203. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:

    For example, oil exploration companies use very advanced theories of the past of the earth, along with VERY advanced technology to predict where they should drill for oil. Oil drilling is VERY expensive, and they will not waste billions of dollars randomly drilling oil wells. While not perfect, this data and technology helps them find the oil… it is really quite interesting if you look into it. And guess what, all of these theories of where the oil is fundamentally based on a very old earth, NOT a young earth!!

    My father spent the majority of his career as a Geophysicist for a major American oil company. Part of that time he helped develop software programs to interpret field testing data. At the end of his career he was consulted for his professional opinion as to whether to drill or not in a particular area. His knowledge of the age of the earth was integral to his work. He believes the earth is billions of years old and is still a Christian. I grew up with the same beliefs and it wasn’t an impediment to my faith.

  204. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    P.S.
    I might add that oil companies are not interesting in ideology/theology/politics/etc… they care about making MONEY, and spending the least amount of money to find the oil… they will use the best theories/technology to find the oil!! If YEC explained where the oil is, they would use it and not care WHO it came from…

  205. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    And guess what, all of these theories of where the oil is fundamentally based on a very old earth, NOT a young earth!! So, we come back to the problem that G$d is tricking us to think the world is old…

    Isn’t the formation of gold, silver, diamonds, rubies, etc., indicative of an old earth, too???? And, come on, don’t most evangelical women, and some of the men, wear a few shiny trinkets?
    I wonder what staunch YECers would say about the formation of oil, precious metals, fossils, and jewels?
    And, NO, I’m not asking my husband!

  206. I have studied science, but I haven’t studied Ken Ham, so I endeavour to comment as little as possible on him personally. However, the claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying “the available evidence points to an old earth”. That God may have created it already old-looking (with all the red-shifted photons in place, etc, etc) can then neither be proved nor disproved; you might say that it is perfectly safe from any real inspection or accountability. It is a matter of “faith”, in the sense of, a willingness to cling to a theory that has no evidence to support it.

    Neither I, nor Ken Ham, nor anybody else alive today was there when:
     The earth was first formed (however long that took)
     The Bible was written (however long that took)

    Since none of us were there when the Bible was written, it’s a wild leap to claim that you know how to interpret it.

  207. Yep to all that and more about the evidence. So we beat our heads against the wall asking people to examine the evidence, but to no avail. For some people it is not about the evidence. It is about believing what one wants to believe for whatever reason in order to achieve something that has nothing to do with the evidence.

    Could it be possible that some people do not so much believe in God but rather believe in their own understandings of scripture? Maybe they are at the same time adamantly YEC and fiery cessationists and lovers of law even if they have to make it up as they go along because these can all be bricks in a wall that protects them from having to deal with God himself unleashed as it were? Perhaps it is just too scary to imaging God as bigger and more about grace/mercy and more currently experiential that they want Him to be. I don’t know what people think obviously, but it is not about the evidence.

  208. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    However, the claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying “the available evidence points to an old earth”. That God may have created it already old-looking

    Except this belief would strongly indicate that God is deceptive — He intentionally misleads us.@ okrapod:
    Double yep.

  209. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Since none of us were there when the Bible was written, it’s a wild leap to claim that you know how to interpret it.

    In dealing with the written word of the Bible it’s wise to understand every reading is only an interpretation and be appropriately cautious and humble about your claims of what it says.

    Appropriate to our YEC/Creation discussons it is important to understand that while the secular community believes that life arose spontaneously science considers this an open question.

  210. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    it is really quite interesting if you look into it. And guess what, all of these theories of where the oil is fundamentally based on a very old earth, NOT a young earth!! So, we come back to the problem that G$d is tricking us to think the world is old…

    I find it interesting that despite all our efforts we have not been able to synthesis petroleum or natural gas. And the only variable we can NOT recreate is millions of years.

  211. caroline wrote:

    However, I find that many churches in my area have made this such a litmus test and are using teaching materials from AIG in Sunday school, children’s programs, etc. (I’m not sure if I’m seeing this more than others because I live in the deep South?)

    I live in the rural Midwest, and AIG is taught as a Sunday School curriculum preschool-adult at our church. Children and parents study the same lesson at the same time to build a foundation for follow-up conversations at home. Although I love the theory of setting up a curriculum that way, I just about died of boredom for the year that we attended adult Sunday School. I was once asked to substitute teach as our teacher was out of town and when I looked through the materials myself, I didn’t know whether to be more sad or horrified. It was a couple of years ago, so I don’t remember the specifics, but it wasn’t good.

  212. nmgirl wrote:

    I find it interesting that despite all our efforts we have not been able to synthesis petroleum or natural gas.

    We’re kind of struggling with helium as well. (The variants we’re struggling with there are millions of Kelvin, and trillions of Newtons per square meter.)

    I realise that only reinforces your point!

  213. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Appropriate to our YEC/Creation discussons it is important to understand that while the secular community believes that life arose spontaneously science considers this an open question.

    This reminds me of a Dawkinsian comment:

    Evolution is fact. End of story.

    There was a certain disquiet among secular scientists about this statement, because it is – for reasons that you well understand and have articulated here often – unscientific.

  214. @ Nancy2:

    That’s very true; in fact it inclines me to modify my statement thus:

    The claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying that
    1) The available evidence points to an old earth, and
    2) God cannot be trusted…

  215. Nancy2 wrote:

    There’s a big difference between ditching your faith in God and ditching a religious doctrine. Certain people just don’t get that.

    That’s a great big BINGO Nancy2, which is why I consistently have trouble understanding the mind set which causes kids to abandon hope altogether because this, that, and the other, may or may not be true.

  216. nmgirl wrote:

    I find it interesting that despite all our efforts we have not been able to synthesis petroleum or natural gas. And the only variable we can NOT recreate is millions of years.

    Both petroleum and natural gas can be and have been synthesized on industrial scales but the laws of thermodynamics guarantee that there will be less energy in the resulting products than were used to make them.

    It’s also interesting that one of the contaminants of natural gas is He4, and in fact this is the major source of this gas. He4 is a very slow decay product of the trace amounts of uranium in the rocks of the of the Earth’s mantle.

  217. Nancy2 wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    However, the claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying “the available evidence points to an old earth”. That God may have created it already old-looking

    Except this belief would strongly indicate that God is deceptive — He intentionally misleads us

    That many Christians reject science gives pause to those considering the claims of Christ. That they also propose God is deceptive provides yet another reason to bypass Christianity. These people are blind guides. Who wants to follow a capricious god.

  218. Lydia wrote:

    All this came about as I started to view OSAS as a sort of insurance policy to treat others badly.

    THIS!!!

  219. nmgirl wrote:

    I find it interesting that despite all our efforts we have not been able to synthesis petroleum or natural gas. And the only variable we can NOT recreate is millions of years.

    Actually it can be done but not economically. Varying estimates abound that it takes more energy to create ethanol for fuel than it produces. The vast oil and gas deposits are examples of energy sequestered over the ages by life on this plant from energy from the sun. But if I say too much I will drift into another branch of religion called politics.

  220. @ okrapod:

    “Could it be possible that some people do not so much believe in God but rather believe in their own understandings of scripture? … Perhaps it is just too scary to imaging God as bigger and more about grace/mercy and more currently experiential that they want Him to be. I don’t know what people think obviously, but it is not about the evidence.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I think there is truth to your comment. I observe the Christian institution putting their faith in [the comforts of] control and predictability, rather than in God (in all God’s magnanimous magnitude).

    but this is old news, isn’t it.

  221. okrapod wrote:

    Could it be possible that some people do not so much believe in God but rather believe in their own understandings of scripture?

    I think it’s very possible okrapod. In my opinion, Calvary Chapel has probably thee most intricately woven world view based on a selective literalism there is. The only way you can ‘know’ and by extension ‘believe in god’ is from the pages of the Bible. God says what he means and means what he says. No dissent, no recourse, no exceptions, end of story.

  222. From the Answers in Genesis Web page (https://answersingenesis.org/college/creationist-students-armed-for-battle/)

    “As a creationist student in a secular science course, you must realize you are entering a battlefield. In the college classroom, Satan wants the Creator denied and the gospel concealed.

    The college classroom seems safe enough: neatly lined rows of desks facing an authoritative professor writing supposed scientific facts on the blackboard. But as a creationist student in a secular science course, you must realize you are entering a battlefield. (Even many Christian colleges have compromised.) The real enemy is not your evolutionist professor or your mocking classmates but the dark forces of evil under the power of the father of lies (John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12). In the college classroom, Satan wants the Creator denied and the gospel concealed. He wants to shatter your faith and smear your testimony.”

    If you look closely, you can see the horns growing out of the back of my head, and that of my colleagues.. I really like the term “supposed scientific facts”…. Yea, remember, we really do not know about radioactive decay… it is just “supposed”… and as one post above stated… Carbon 13 dating is “of the devil”..

  223. Girasol wrote:

    If you let it all sink in, the magnitude and the complexity and the beauty are quite overwhelming – as is the glimpse that you get of just how cold and impersonal it all is. We think we are above it, but we’re not – we just have the capacity for awareness of it and the drive to compose beautiful songs to whistle in the dark.

    Yes, exactly. I am no less moved as a non-believer now by the beauty and complexity. It’s just freeing to me to no longer have to downplay, try and explain away, or ignore the cold and impersonal part.

  224. Mark wrote:

    Wow! I skipped church because they were hosting a creation science seminar. I did find out from people who attended that carbon 14 dating is a Satanic deception.

    An excellent review of radiometric dating, not just C14, is given by “Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective”, Dr. Roger C. Wiens, http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Wiens.html Wiens is writing as a Christian on the American Scientific Affiliation website. The ASA is an organization of scientists who are Christian and yes, I am a member. He touches on dating methods other than radiometric and discusses various objections to radiometric dating made some Christian communities.

  225. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    That’s very true; in fact it inclines me to modify my statement thus:
    The claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying that
    1) The available evidence points to an old earth, and
    2) God cannot be trusted…

    I’ve jumped in these discussions before… Not pretty for a self-confessed YEC, but I’m game … With regards to apparent age, has anyone ever given thought that God created Adam as a man. Not as a child. Adam was obviously a young man if not an aged adult. Right? Why would one have an issue with apparent age with the earth, stars, moon, etc?

  226. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I’ve found Richard Dawkins to have much more faith than I in many of his evolutionary beliefs. One of my biggest issues with evolutionists is the dogma “fact” of evolution although the “facts” have consistently changed to this day. Call it theory and I’ll let you go on your way. 😉

  227. numo wrote:

    @ BC:
    Someone might already have said this in reply, but hey…

    Looking in a dictionary if you noticed the 2 words hypothesis and theory
    hypothesis= suppositional, conjectural, uncertain, conditional, contingent, existing as a idea or possibility but not actual.

    Theory= a system of assumptions. Lacking verification from experience or experiment. Existing only in theory, hypothetical, or abstract speculation, not factual, subject to verification by testing. An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge, supposition or opinion.

    Another fun thing for the scientifically minded to do on a cold Saturday night is google “Science frauds/hoaxes”

  228. @ BC:
    Umm… this is the 1st def that came up on Dictionary.com – not making it up, dude.

    a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
    Einstein’s theory of relativity.

    Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

  229. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    More, from the same source –

    Synonym Study

    1, 2. In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy. Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton’s laws of motion. In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established, fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and nontechnical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth. In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutable for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur’s experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease. Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.

  230. The use of the word ‘theory’ is, of course, different when used as a specific scientific term and when it is used in a non-scientific setting. This may be a point of confusion I suppose, but I think it is more often used rather as a childish game where people pretend that they do not know this.

    Consider the word gay for example. Or broken which may mean a bone or a heart or a promise. Grace has a different meaning on a sliding scale depending on which denominational group is talking about it. Discharge may mean exit from the military or the hospital but is entirely different if one discharges a debt or a weapon. Surely we all know that language is like this.

  231. @ Somewhereintime:
    the fact of Evolution has not changed. The evidence discovered has and should cause us to tweak our explanations over the last 150 years. A theory tries to explain all the evidence from a wide variety of sources.

  232. @ BC:

    A scientific theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

  233. zooey111 wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.
    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).
    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).

    Do have proof of this? A google search turned up nothing. If true, that’s outrageous!

  234. Here is one one reference/cite:

    https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/already-gone/

    Mourning Dove wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:
    numo wrote:
    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.
    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).
    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).
    Do have proof of this? A google search turned up nothing. If true, that’s outrageous!

    Mourning Dove wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:
    numo wrote:
    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.
    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).
    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).
    Do have proof of this? A google search turned up nothing. If true, that’s outrageous!

  235. nmgirl wrote:

    @ BC:

    This would be the case with something such as gravity in which case it would change from being called a theory to being called a law. We have laws of motion etc.
    The reason some matters continue to be called theories e.g. evolution is because they cannot be subjected to scientific method, repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
    Facts can be often be elusive and so speculation continues.

  236. K.D. wrote:

    And if y’all will remember my son in your prayers. He travels to Japan on Monday. He has some job interviews over there. His mom and I are concerned….

    I prayed for your son, K.D. I hope all will be well.

    Is there anything specific you’re worried about? Or is it mainly general fears about letting one’s child go halfway around the world? If you have questions, I can tell you what I know about living and working in Japan (on the Open Discussion page, if you prefer).

  237. What’s it all about?
    Old earth/young earth?
    Whether you look at the awesomeness of the Universe
    or look at what it’s made up of from big to little… molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, smaller smaller and what’s in between and what’s holding it all together or not.
    In the beginning? That’s the question begging proof
    and science really doesn’t know yet.

  238. Also, using assumptions made based on the theory of evolution, scientists have made predictions that they have been able to verify with DNA sequencing. I find the claim that the scientific method cannot be applied to evolution to be … lacking in intellectual rigor. If you had noticed the definitions that Numo and others have shared above, you’d notice that a theory is what a hypothesis becomes after said hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method and come through unscathed.

  239. Somewhereintime wrote:

    One of my biggest issues with evolutionists is the dogma “fact” of evolution although the “facts” have consistently changed to this day. Call it theory and I’ll let you go on your way.

    That depends why you want me to call it a “theory”.

    As BC has – if inadvertently – demonstrated, there are two contradictory meanings of the word “theory”, and this fact is routinely used by creationists in a linguistic bait-and-switch. Even BC’s quoted half-definition above concedes that a theory is “subject to verification by testing” – the part about “Lacking verification from experience or experiment” is a misleading, if not wholly false, definition of a scientific theory.

    Now, it’s true that there are those who acknowledge that their belief that the earth is a few thousand years old is only a theory; being finite and human, they really don’t know much about God; and the earth could be any age for all they know. I’ve no problem with that. It’s the ones who insist on the the dogma “fact” of YEC that are my biggest issue with YEC generally.

  240. @ Josh:
    The best prediction of evolution was demonstrated in the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shubin and his team.

  241. @ BC:
    So wrong. I was taught that laws are things that can be represented mathematically. But we know way more about the Theory of Evolution than the Theory of Gravity. We know that gravity exists and how to calculate its effects on objects, but we don’t know what causes it. We know that gravity in the mega world is different from gravity in the quantum world, but we don’t know what causes that either.

  242. nmgirl wrote:

    @ BC:

    So right that there is much more that we scientifically don’t know then what we do know. That doesn’t mean that we don’t keep searching and questioning. I don’t know who taught you that we know rather than speculate about the theory of evolution but perhaps if they were truly scientific they wouldn’t have been so dogmatic.
    We also don’t know in science how life began tho there has been much speculation? Nor do we know for a fact how DNA sequencing came about. When did this all begin and how and what was before that are among the things that we don’t thru science know for a fact tho they do speculate.

  243. Somewhereintime wrote:

    With regards to apparent age, has anyone ever given thought that God created Adam as a man. Not as a child. Adam was obviously a young man if not an aged adult. Right?

    Did he? God created Adam out of the dust of the earth. Now, unless you think God was playing with a sandbox, maybe the word dust meant something else. Perhaps it meant DNA, something that the ancients could not imagine.

    Now, what differentiated Adam from every other created being? God breathed the breath of life into him. If you note, it does not say that God did that with any other living creature. Could it be that the breath of life wasn’t the animation of life but the bestowing of the gift of the soul-something which differentiates man from every other living thing.

    Could it be that God allowed Adam and mankind to evolve and at one point in the process, gave them the gift of the immortal soul. It says God took Adam and placed him into the Garden. So Adam was brought there from elsewhere.What was going on outside of the Garden?

    Could it be that Adam and Eve were brought into the Garden as the representatives of the human race to live out the drama which ensued? Have you ever read Perelandra by CS Lewis?

    I believe that Adam and Eve existed. I believe God breathed the gift of the immortal should into their lives at a particular point. None of that negates the possibility that evolution occurred.

    I absolutely love to think of this process. I often imagine what was present when this all happened. Like the man in the post, it is glorious and incredible. BTW-I believe that Adam had a belly button.

  244. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … Ken Ham … However, the claim that “God made the earth to look old” (regardless of who might make that claim) is more or less equivalent to saying “the available evidence points to an old earth”.

    I’m fairly certain that KH and AIG do NOT claim that God made the earth to look old. They keep working on “science” to show how everything we see could have happened in 10K years. Give or take.

  245. Gravity.

    The above mentions are a part of the problem. We DO know about gravity and how to calculate it’s effects. But to do that accurately requires we get into math that I can’t follow in any great detail without some serious remedial+new work and I had 4 years of engineering math. Curved space time and all that.

    But talking about gravity at the quantum level doesn’t make much sense to me. The effects are so tiny as to be non existent in any way we can measure or explain. Or so I understand. 🙂

  246. NJ wrote:

    I have not read the book Starlight and Time, which was supposed to be an answer to Hugh Ross’s Creation and Time. If anybody here has read it, I’d love to read your thoughts about the arguments made.

    I’ve read it. But before I speak my mind, (rant), here’s a fairly level discussion of Humphrey’s work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

    The book was published in 1996. I about 10 years ago. It was just before the adult Sunday school dust up about YEC that Dee has discussed at times. (I was the one who told her it would be a bad idea and might turn out to create more issues than it resolved.)

    At the time the book was being promoted by AIG and it’s fans as a scientific explanation of how the earth was formed in 6000 years (give or take) and solve various issues the secular science raises. I found it nonsense. Basically Humphrey explained creation as a process where God re-defined the laws of physics 3 times. And then said see, science can be reconciled with the Bible.

    Sorry but from where I (and many others) sit science with 3 miracles in the process is not science in any way shape or fashion.

    Two other friends who read it had similar or maybe stronger opinions. Both smarter than me. One a practicing PHD in math.

    The Wikipedia article mentions Hugh Ross. I had the pleasure to spend some time with him a few years back. He basically implied that KH was a arrogant closed minded fool. In very polite indirect terms. Think of southern compliments.

  247. Mourning Dove wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.
    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).
    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).

    Do have proof of this? A google search turned up nothing. If true, that’s outrageous!

    Julie Anne had a blog post about this awhile back.

  248. The problem is that a significant fraction of evangelicalism has bought in/supports KH. As I and a numbers of others have tried to point out, IMHO what KH, and YECism is doing is not a minor, side issues….. It gets to the core of how we humans interact with, and determine reality.

    I read people say, well, you do not have believe what YEC say to be a Christain; true, but just go and read what KH, and AIG say a about you, and tell me this is not important. If it were a fringe group fine, but the official position of allot of evangelicalism is in line with AIG…… IMHO this is a HUGE theological issue..

    zooey111 wrote:

    Mourning Dove wrote:
    zooey111 wrote:
    numo wrote:
    @ dee:
    Uh, yeah,i did hear tell of that.
    What he is: a quintessential medicine show-type hawker. Why, you can even buy his books and DVDs about reaching out toyour disaffected kids who’ve left the faith due to learning actusl science and all that. The terms con man and shyster come to mind, as do Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real Marjoe (among others).
    Let us not forget the Ken Hamm action figure, on sale at the Creation Museum. He describes it as “my way to spread the gospel”. (Pardon me while I barf).
    Do have proof of this? A google search turned up nothing. If true, that’s outrageous!
    Julie Anne had a blog post about this awhile back.

  249. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    I read people say, well, you do not have believe what YEC say to be a Christain; true, but just go and read what KH, and AIG say a about you, and tell me this is not important. If it were a fringe group fine, but the official position of allot of evangelicalism is in line with AIG…… IMHO this is a HUGE theological issue..

    I keep waiting for the SBC to add YEC to the Baptist Faith & Message.

  250. On a “relevant tangent” (to the degree that this isn’t an oxymoron):

    I will be out of circulation once I post this comment, and won’t be Wartburging until around this time next week. Of course, Wartburgworld will get along perfectly well without me, but I must crave forgiveness in advance should anyone reply to one of my comments in such a way as to invite interaction.

  251. Nancy2 wrote:

    I keep waiting for the SBC to add YEC to the Baptist Faith & Message.

    I can’t quote chapter and verse as it were but I believe that Al Mohler believes in YEC to that extent. Or says that he does. Or tries to believe that he does. Or wants other people to think that he does or might.

    The reason that I say all that is that I personally do not think that a lot of anti-science YEC people believe it to the extent that they pretend to. Example: I never once saw one of them refuse any nuclear med scan in our department on the basis of fear that the rate of decay might precipitously drop below some detectable level thus yielding a false diagnosis from the scan, or might accelerate to some level which might do them harm in the process. Nor have I seen them throw out their microwaves or their phones or their TV or their computers or give their autos to charity and get a horse or switch from electricity to candles for lighting, or choose to rather let nature take its course for some serious illness instead of availing themselves of science based medical care.

    I think that just as Russ Moore was right that most people who claim to be comp are not actually practicing patriarchy but are basically in egalitarian marriages, and even so and in the same manner I think that most people who theoretically buy into the extreme anti-science opinions of YEC actually are oblivious to what they say they believe.

  252. @ dee:
    Hi Dee! 🙂 Thank you very much. I’ve been lurking around here ever since God led me to the blog a few months ago. I was awfully glad to join the conversation!

    @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
    Why thank you, now it makes sense. I have never been to Guiana, or whatever the country was, but I guess it is hard to detect where the IP is from, with so many countries and so few numbers, haha.

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Thank you for the warm welcome. I’ve been called pretty much every name in the book, but Jezebel and a person of satan were my personal favorites, although there’s not much originality in them!

    @ Nancy2:
    Yes, exactly! But I guess it’s okay if the machine detects the country wrong based on the IP addresses. I’ve only been outside of Russia once, several years ago:))

  253. You are correct…. I have noticed that a large number of evangelical leaders will be “soft” YECers… And, as you point out, they are very inconsistent…. They want it both ways…. They want modern science, and will use to justify their philosophical system, and personal lifestyle, until it contradicts their position, then they will jump to the argument that this “modern science” will make them through out the whole Christain narative. The speed/depth at which these jumps are made is breathtaking…. And maddening for those of us that work in scientific fields.

    .

    @ okrapod:

  254. P.S. The GARBC demoniations is soft YEC, and Liberty University is hard core YEC…

  255. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Liberty University is hard core YEC…

    I checked their web site and I see that they offer a minor in creation studies. What they offer is a smattering of introductory courses in a number of various fields without enough in any area to get beyond the most basic introductory level. Good grief. A few of these courses are in ‘my’ area, and I do think that I know what they can cover is this abbreviated program and I feel the need to say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Really dangerous. Far better to believe the physicists about physics and the geneticists about genetics and the geologists about their field and so on.

    But if having their creation center keeps the money flowing from some of their contributors who cares about serious academics, right?

  256. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    P.S. The GARBC demoniations is soft YEC, and Liberty University is hard core YEC…

    And Liberty U has replaced Bob Jones U as the Pilgrimage Site for GOP Presidential hopefuls to receive God’s Anointing as POTUS from the ManaGAWD’s own hands.

  257. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    You are correct…. I have noticed that a large number of evangelical leaders will be “soft” YECers… And, as you point out, they are very inconsistent…. They want it both ways…. They want modern science, and will use to justify their philosophical system, and personal lifestyle, until it contradicts their position, then they will jump to the argument that this “modern science” will make them through out the whole Christain narative. The speed/depth at which these jumps are made is breathtaking….

    doublethink, comrades, doublethink.

  258. @ zooey111:
    And there’s also a website on Internet Monk’s blog list called “God of Evolution”. Kind of like a shorter, snarkier Biologos.

  259. NC Now wrote:

    I found it nonsense. Basically Humphrey explained creation as a process where God re-defined the laws of physics 3 times. And then said see, science can be reconciled with the Bible.

    1) “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”
    2) “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”
    3) “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!”

  260. dee wrote:

    Also, take a look at the list of scientists associated with AIG and check out their degrees, etc.

    Let me guess…
    HONORARY Degrees from Ken Ham (or Named-after-ManaGAWD Bible College) himself?

  261. @ NC Now:

    Einstein and Bohr argued endlessly over this stuff, and it does lend a kind of credence to the proposition that we simply don’t know enough about ‘bigness’ and ‘smallness’, ‘longness’ and ‘shortness’, to resolve the behavioral contradictions between either scale. The best both camps can come up with to this day is:
    “is too!” + “is not!” + “does too!” + “does not!” + …

    The point here is that if two eminent scientists (Einstein & Bohr) of old could maintain a mutual admiration and respect for each other regardless of differences, I’m convinced that we can do the same today. Those of us who believe in special creation sans a long iterative procedure over vast oceans of time, and those who believe in the evolutionary model, can peacefully coexist. I think that our energies could be better focused on the things which really do matter, like building a better world in the here and now.

  262. @ BC:
    Who taught me about evolution? Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge, Neil Shubin, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Donald Prothero, Francis Collins, Nick Matzke, Harley Merritt, Kenneth R Miller,Sergio delaHara, Shawn Wright and several science teachers that I no longer remember their names.

  263. @ NC Now:
    Physics is definitely not my thing (amnd I have the Cs to prove it) but I understood that at the quantum level gravity is not directly related to mass of the particle. Now I may be remembering wrong. It won’t be the first or last time.

  264. @ nmgirl:
    and BC: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. And even though we don’t have an answer yet, scientists are following a lot of very interesting trails.

  265. BC wrote:

    Another fun thing for the scientifically minded to do on a cold Saturday night is google “Science frauds/hoaxes”

    I’m going to assume the quote wasn’t an attempt at humor. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Fraud in science is an extremely serious matter. About three years ago I wrote guest post http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/10/fraud-in-science-are-some-young-earth-proponents-being-disingenuous/ contrasting how fraud is handled in both the secular science world and by the YEC world (ICR, AIG specifically). Very briefly the science domain treats fraud seriously and works to minimize it. Replication of experiments and observations is crucial to this effort. Theoretical work requires rigorous mathematics that can be checked for correctness. My examination of two “papers” on the AIG website shows experimental radiometric dates reasonably close to accepted ages followed by dismissal of the entire radiometric dating process because the data sets are somehow discordant without defining discordant. Claims like this transcend mere fraud in their total audacity.

    As an aside the two AIG papers I reviewed have been replaced by links to results from the ICR RATE project. The AIG/ICR claims and mine have not changed. The RATE project has been thoroughly evaluated and debunked by the ASA.

    For anyone not reading the entire post and comments: ASA – American Scientific Affiliation, ICR – Institute for Creation Research, AIG – Answers in Genesis, RATE – Radioactivity and Age of the Earth.

  266. Muff Potter wrote:

    The point here is that if two eminent scientists (Einstein & Bohr) of old could maintain a mutual admiration and respect for each other regardless of differences, I’m convinced that we can do the same today.

    I recall reading Cicero: “On Old Age On Friendship On Divination” that validated some things are shared in common even though separated by 2000 years, politics, religion, and culture. As an aside Cicero was also opposed to authoritarian men.

  267. There are many examples of these groups being misleading, or worse. I have read an account written by an ex-YEC that when he was “in the club” he started bring up “issues” within there approach to evidence, and his “whistle blower” was then attacked personally. So, not only are they not honest with their own work, they personally attach when questions are raised.

    OldJohnJ wrote:

    BC wrote:
    Another fun thing for the scientifically minded to do on a cold Saturday night is google “Science frauds/hoaxes”
    I’m going to assume the quote wasn’t an attempt at humor. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    Fraud in science is an extremely serious matter. About three years ago I wrote guest post http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/10/fraud-in-science-are-some-young-earth-proponents-being-disingenuous/ contrasting how fraud is handled in both the secular science world and by the YEC world (ICR, AIG specifically). Very briefly the science domain treats fraud seriously and works to minimize it. Replication of experiments and observations is crucial to this effort. Theoretical work requires rigorous mathematics that can be checked for correctness. My examination of two “papers” on the AIG website shows experimental radiometric dates reasonably close to accepted ages followed by dismissal of the entire radiometric dating process because the data sets are somehow discordant without defining discordant. Claims like this transcend mere fraud in their total audacity.

    As an aside the two AIG papers I reviewed have been replaced by links to results from the ICR RATE project. The AIG/ICR claims and mine have not changed. The RATE project has been thoroughly evaluated and debunked by the ASA.
    For anyone not reading the entire post and comments: ASA – American Scientific Affiliation, ICR – Institute for Creation Research, AIG – Answers in Genesis, RATE – Radioactivity and Age of the Earth.

  268. @ Paul D.:

    I would agree that in science, “theory” is something more than “an educated guess” (the use of the word in common parlance). After all, gravity could be construed as “only a theory”. Also, to be accepted as a theory in science, a hypothesis has to have a weighty amount of scientific evidence behind it.

  269. @ Somewhereintime:

    Re the changing facts, perhaps you could list some?

    The advance in the understanding of a subject and discarding of some ideas does not mean that the bedrock theory itself is wrong. To take an example from physics, Einstein’s work caused a change in our view of the universe (eg it is not a perfectly running clockwork model as Newton seemed to imply), but it did not invalidate all of Newton’s work.

    New fossil finds if anything appear to strengthen the conviction that birds are descendants of reptiles, for example.

    Having said that, I have friends who are YEC and I respect their views, which is why I feel uncomfortable when there is a tone of mockery in some of these discussions.

  270. In my study of the Bible, the one verse that most led me to believe in a literal six day (6 x24 hour days) creation, was Exodus 20:11. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.”

    If God himself rested on the 7th day (the sabbath), He did not lay around for millions/billions of years. A day was a 24 hour period. He even gave us that verse, and others, as an example of what he wanted us to do with our own lives … Work for six days, rest for one.

    The great thing is that we serve a living God whose business is not to deceive us or confuse us. That is the devil’s job. When The Lord god said he created (out of nothing) the heavens, the earth, all the animals, the sun stars, fish and mankind… I believe that is just what He did.

  271. @ Somewhereintime:
    Personally I have no problem with that.

    My problems come up with people start saying “and here’s the science to prove it and science that doesn’t agree with us is lies and false. And then if you don’t agree with us you’re not a Christian. That’s the point of all of this. I was there with Dee.

  272. Bill M wrote:

    As an aside Cicero was also opposed to authoritarian men.

    I’ve read a smattering of Aurelius, but no Cicero. If he was against authoritarian blow-hards (Ken Ham & Bill Nye come to mind), he sounds like my kind of guy.

  273. I’d like to raise another argument which has not yet been in this thread, to wit, that the arguments are nearly identical to those raised by the Inquisition against Galileo, 400 years ago.
    You know what they say about those who fail to learn from history.
    Pope John Paul II, writing in 1992, had this to say about his predecessors, who banned Galileo’s writings and sentenced him to house arrest for the rest of his life:
    “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….”
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

  274. Somewhereintime wrote:

    In my study of the Bible, the one verse that most led me to believe in a literal six day (6 x24 hour days) creation, was Exodus 20:11. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.”

    Okay. Can you explain Joshua 10: 12 -13??? It says the sun and the moon stood still – nothing about the earth. Is science wrong about the solar system?

  275. Beakerj wrote:

    I suspect Ken’s experience is with a limited range of individuals.

    Thank you. I did say from the start I was talking from a non-American context. Of course being told Genesis must to involve a literal day of 24 hours then to find real Christians who think otherwise can cause intellectual problems and doubts, but as I said those I have known personally who have rejected the faith have always done so because they wanted to do something the bible said no to. I’m not claiming my experience is the norm, nor am I playing a ‘card’. It’s what I have seen in real life.

    I suppose the underlying question is, in what or in whom have people put their faith in the first place? Hearing the gospel on ‘being put right with God’ – repentance and the need to change, putting your faith in/receiving Christ, being baptised in water to seal this, receiving the Holy Spirit, prayer and fellowship … – none of this depends on Genesis 1.

    So whilst Ken Ham YEC might cause problems for some who get heavily into the relevant science, the problem is how to interpret Genesis, this has nothing to do with being a believer under the new covenant. Experincing the risen Christ. Filled with the Holy Spirit.

    That’s why I think more must be involved with those who fall away than a particular understanding of origins. What other people teach about origins is no defence before God for renouncing faith in Christ, and I think we should avoid giving the impression that is – even whilst taking seriously those for whom YEC is a problem.

  276. Nancy2 wrote:

    It says the sun and the moon stood still – nothing about the earth. Is science wrong about the solar system?

    fwiw the OT speaks from the point of view of the earth-bound observer. Much as we still say sunrise and sunset or the sun being high in sky. These expressions are not scientific or literally true, but neither are they deceptive or misleading. They are simply how things appear to us. It’s anachronistic to import modern notions back into the OT, or take easy to understand metaphors literally, such as earth having ‘foundations’ like a house, when it is actually in space.

    I have no idea exactly how God achieved what happened in Joshua, but if Gen 1 v 1 is true, the rest follows!

  277. @ KMD:

    Concerning what you noted about what Pope John Paul II said about prior erroneous theological thinking, in the Galileo affair, this is an illustration of one of the major dividing lines in religious thinking that is playing out in the origins debate.

    On the one hand we see the idea that the thinking of the church is a dynamic thing which is flexible enough to change when and where indicated, and strangely enough this is in a church which adheres strongly to tradition. That actually sounds like something that could not and would not be-but there it is.

    On the other hand in the protestant evangelical tradition (not all protestants) we see a system which pretty much rejects all tradition prior to the reformation, thinks in different lines from tradition in many areas since the reformation, and then demands that people cling to the understandings of people from thousands of years ago when it comes to origins. This also seems to me to be improbable, but again there it is.

  278. Nancy2 wrote:

    Somewhereintime wrote:
    In my study of the Bible, the one verse that most led me to believe in a literal six day (6 x24 hour days) creation, was Exodus 20:11. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.”
    Okay. Can you explain Joshua 10: 12 -13??? It says the sun and the moon stood still – nothing about the earth. Is science wrong about the solar system?

    And, Ecclesiastes 1:4-5
    4A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever. 5Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. 6Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns.…

    So,
    1. The earth remains forever,
    2. The earth does not revolve, the sun goes around the earth, and hurries up to come around the next morning
    3. the wind blow in a circular motion.

  279. Ken wrote:

    What other people teach about origins is no defence before God for renouncing faith in Christ,

    If I may? I think you miss the main point; that being it is often the children of parents who insist upon “YEC or you cannot possibly be a Bible believing Christian” that have walked away from the faith. It would be devastating to many a child to believe their parents were lying to them. Some children might handle it well enough to be able to see God beyond their own parents’ beliefs. But many are devastated to find their parents insisting that you cannot know God if you do not hold to a literal reading of every word in the Bible. I have known parents who disown their children for thinking outside the boxes that their parents have constructed around God.

  280. okrapod wrote:

    On the one hand we see the idea that the thinking of the church is a dynamic thing which is flexible enough to change when and where indicated, and strangely enough this is in a church which adheres strongly to tradition. That actually sounds like something that could not and would not be-but there it is.

    Think of “adhering strongly to tradition” as forming a baseline and anchor point.

  281. nmgirl wrote:

    @ BC:
    Who taught me about evolution? Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge, Neil Shubin, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Donald Prothero, Francis Collins, Nick Matzke, Harley Merritt, Kenneth R Miller,Sergio delaHara, Shawn Wright and several science teachers that I no longer remember their names.

    Gould is a good one. A master of what the French call “vulgarization”, i.e. explaining complex scientific/technical concepts in easily understandable terms.

    Contrast that lineup with that of the Kentucky Creation Museum and Ark Experience theme park.

  282. YEC wasn’t the only thing that led to me leaving the faith – it was just one aspect of the whole package. It used to strike me as strange that no-one had any good explanation for where to draw the line with the Christian faith either. OK we’re Baptist, but what about the Presbyterians; the Anglicans; the Pentecostals; the Quakers; the Catholics; the Unitarians etc.. etc…So the differences matter? Apparently they do – not enough just to believe in Jesus, you have to believe in this particular Jesus and sign up for this particular way of interpreting the Bible. Are Catholics going to hell? Well yes…or no…anyway only God knows what is in each person’s heart so we shouldn’t judge. And yet we do. And if you can be one of these other types of Christians and and not go to hell then doesnt that mean that all those weird things they believe aren’t so important either? It’s only what we have in common that’s important? Then let’s keep going – what about the Muslims? Are they going to hell? Maybe not some of the good ones? Maybe it is OK not to follow some of those rules then, since they don’t seem to be essential for the salvation of these other guys?? Maybe sport on Sunday is OK, and evolution, and divorce, and homosexuality and analysis of the Bible like any other historical document etc…etc…Wait, that essentially means I have to work out what I think, myself. And take everyone else at face value, as they come, rather than according to which little pigeonhole they emerge from. There’s a life’s work right there.

  283. Ken wrote:

    fwiw the OT speaks from the point of view of the earth-bound observer. Much as we still say sunrise and sunset or the sun being high in sky. These expressions are not scientific or literally true, but neither are they deceptive or misleading. They are simply how things appear to us. It’s anachronistic to import modern notions back into the OT, or take easy to understand metaphors literally, such as earth having ‘foundations’ like a house, when it is actually in space.

    This is exactly what we have been trying to explain to you concerning comp doctrines. You have consistently refused to view the teaching through the lens of the 1st Century and how things such as Paterfamilias actually worked in their world yet how radical Eph 5:21 was in that context.

    The ancients saw the sun go down and thought the sun was moving. Yet, God did not tell them to write about it in the correct scientific sense.

  284. Ken wrote:

    but if Gen 1 v 1 is true, the rest follows!

    How so? The only statement that 1:1 establishes is that there was a beginning and there was God and that God was creative cause. There is nothing there that says that it follows that anything and everything that somebody claims about God in relation to his creation is therefore accurate.

    Perhaps that is not what you said but it sounds like it.

  285. @ Ken:
    I meant a limited range of individuals who leave the churvh, xtianity, or both. Most, in my experience, do NOT leave due to sexusl issues. (-Though, not being from the same psrt of the country as the Deebs, i have yet to meet anyone who left over the whole YEC debaclr.)

    Ken, so many of us here left because of abuse, and you sail in and make pronouncements about how people lesve solely over sexual issues. Do you not see how offendive that is?

  286. Somewhereintime wrote:

    With regards to apparent age, has anyone ever given thought that God created Adam as a man. Not as a child. Adam was obviously a young man if not an aged adult. Right? Why would one have an issue with apparent age with the earth, stars, moon, etc?

    Years ago when I was seriously contemplating this stuff, I had the exact same thought. Mainly because my kids were asking questions. Growing up, this never really mattered to us and convos on age of the earth were considered healthy. (I had a Christian uncle who was a bonafide rocket scientist and OEC so it was considered an area with freedom of conscious, not doctrinal necessity, in my world)

    Since I am scientifically illiterate, my focus was on Genesis. There were a bunch of things that bothered me when I read it literally. I read snippets from other ancient creation narratives and was a bit taken back with how similar they are in “genre”. The other narratives had such things as angry gods or some such.

    That seemed to give me permission to dig into Genesis not as a creation textbook or manual but as a Creation narrative meant to show the Good God who loves us, wants fellowship with us to guide us and instill wisdom but also provides us with rescue.

    Some scholars believe Genesis was written during or after the Babylonian exile. That it was a creation narrative handed down and then written down because, in exile, the Isrealites were forgetting who they were and what had taken place with God’s rescue.

    It has really helped me to understand the OT within a very pagan backdrop with God’s people juxtaposed within that backdrop. The many genres of poetry and such make it hard for Enlightened Western eyes to decipher in some ways. As one scholar put it, you cannot put Hebrew poetry into a computer and it spit out a literal meaning. If it does, then we should be praying imprecatory prayers like David?

    If you are ever interested in looking at another view, I would highly recommend “Genesis for Normal People” as a start. It was written for lightweights like me with no scientific background. :o)

  287. @ Ken:

    So whilst Ken Ham YEC might cause problems for some who get heavily into the relevant science, the problem is how to interpret Genesis, this has nothing to do with being a believer under the new covenant. Experincing the risen Christ. Filled with the Holy Spirit.

    I agree. IMO, I think it depends on how YEC is presented. Like Lydia, when growing up the Southern Baptist Church in the US, nobody focused on Genesis as relevant to salvation. I don’t even remember it being discussed. But, we’ve had some comment here that it’s being taught in Sunday School. What if it is being presented now as What We Believe by some churches and schools? I think if you grow up believing that Creation is intertwined with Faith it could cause problems when your belief in Creation comes crashing down.

  288. Ken wrote:

    It’s what I have seen in real life.

    So let me enlarge your real life experience. When I was four years old I had an actual experience when I came to realize, in my child’s mind, that not only was there no easter bunny but also there was no santa clause and also there was no Jesus, that my parents were lying to me and laughing at me behind my back, and that I had been an utter %%%% to have believed them in the first place about anything.

    Now obviously I was correct about some of that and wrong about some of that, but none the less the sense of betrayal and the shame and the suspicion of further lies have been with me all my life. I am thinking that this must be what some people feel when they get told at church this you must believe and then they come to believe later that it was all wrong in the first place.

    You have to remember also that among evangelical fundamentalists christianity is first and last about doctrine. Always doctrine. If the doctrine is shown to be in error then the whole system crumbles.

  289. @ okrapod:

    This is what happened in my faith crisis. What I was taught failed and I rejected everything. Everything! How can I know what is true or false when the system comes crashing down?

  290. okrapod wrote:

    You have to remember also that among evangelical fundamentalists christianity is first and last about doctrine. Always doctrine. If the doctrine is shown to be in error then the whole system crumbles.

    Bingo!

  291. okrapod wrote:

    You have to remember also that among evangelical fundamentalists christianity is first and last about doctrine. Always doctrine. If the doctrine is shown to be in error then the whole system crumbles.

    And sadly it doesn’t have to be this way. Young folks, old folks, and all those in between are perfectly free to use their own divine template within to determine what’s what for themselves. Which is why I have a hard time understanding why young folks ditch Messiah altogether. Because science didn’t mesh in lock-step perfection with what they may or may not have been taught? What ever happened to free thought and free moral agency? Sorry if I’ve violated TWW’s prime directive of empathy for victims, but as they say… oh well…

  292. Muff Potter wrote:

    What ever happened to free thought and free moral agency?

    Evangelical fundamentalism declared it incompatible with a biblical worldview.

  293. numo wrote:

    Ken, so many of us here left because of abuse, and you sail in and make pronouncements about how people leave solely over sexual issues

    lease read the post again and note the qualifications – I’m not in the States and I’m not making my experience the ‘rule’. I’m not therefore making some universally applicable claims or pronouncement. Just what I have seen, in the same way you have related your own experience. More valuable than many internet pages!

    I’m also specifically referring to those who reject the faith they once espoused. Leaving churches because of mistreatment etc. is something different. Been there, done that and got the T shirt! In fact I reckon there are many who leave churches because they don’t want to risk falling away – something some well-known pastors clearly don’t understand. Our faith should never be in the church, even a good one. And even the best Christians have feet of clay and can let you down.

  294. republican mother wrote:

    We have YEC curriculum at our house and some of it is interesting. But my daughter has also read Origin of the Species, where she learned about the lowest evolved race on Earth: the Irish.

    The IRISH???? (Irish person here). (Irascible Irish person).

  295. I rejected the Bible’s account of creation for awhile, too. Then the Word of God and Spirit of God moved in my life through a painful situation in which God showed me His mercy and truth in power. I am back to looking to His Word first and am so thankful. Please don’t be deceived. Satan wants us to embrace error.

  296. Autumn wrote:

    I rejected the Bible’s account of creation for awhile, too.

    Wow! How wonderful that you know, for sure, what the Bible says about creation and that you know you are not deceived by Satan and that the rest of us are deceived. Ken Ham will give you an award for sure.

  297. From such a high horse, with a case of myopia severe enough into confuse someone into thinking that their interpretation of the “Bible’s account of creation” is not an interpretation at all but what the Bible Clearly Says (TM), I’m sure it can appear that those of us down on the ground are deceived by Satan. That, it should go without saying, does not make it so.

  298. @ Ken:
    Ken, a lot of people reject “the faith” due to the hypocrisy and abuse they encounter. And certainly not just peopld in the US, forcryingoutloud!

    What’s that quote about letting mercy triumph over judgement? I think you presume far too much, and that comes actoss as hurtful to those folks who’ve been thete, done that and have the scars to prove it.

    I dunno; it is very frustrating to try to get things across to you, and I’m throwing in the towel for now.

  299. @ Ken:
    You know what? I’ve been through enough that i am very surprised i still believe at all. Feel unable to walk into a service of any kind, can’t bring myself to read yhd Bible, can’t really pray – all make me so anxious yhat it’s not worth trying, except in very, very brief seconds of time.

    Not only that, but… if there were a good synagogue nearby, i might just start the study that has to be embarked on prior to conversion.

    So, am i some kinf of apostate due to sexual reasons?! Hardly.

    Please do NOT presume to pass judgement on that ehich yoj do not understanf. (Saying that at myself, too…) I just don’t see any real understsnding of what so many wrestld with in your posts, nor do i see you making an effort to try and understand. You seem like a decent person, but you need to get out more.

  300. numo wrote:

    Feel unable to walk into a service of any kind, can’t bring myself to read the Bible, can’t really pray – all make me so anxious that it’s not worth trying, …

    I can only say numo that I can only too well identify with this. Even to the extent of beginning to ‘neglect so great a salvation’. The thought of crossing the threshold of a church making me want to throw up. Little men and their big bibles. Great at arguing about petty points of doctrine.

    It is possible to come out of the other end eventually, but I am still a bit wary of churches.

    You know what has got me down in its time is not so much the ‘imperfections’ of church life – the NT is littered with examples; it’s the indifference to even trying to live it out.

    At the back of my mind is an increasing awareness that salvation is only ‘guaranteed’ if we continue in the faith. Not ‘churchianity’, but failing to overcome and abide in the vine.

    It’s been the hardest piece of rethinking I have ever had to do as a devotee of ‘once saved always saved’ or eternal security. And to seriously face the idea that if you do reject the faith outright (as opposed to neglect church attendance) there comes a point where is no way back. Taking the Hebrews warnings seriously, and not neutering them through a Calvinist filter or wishful thinking.

    You may now see why I think and have been saying we need to be careful making very real church abuse or arguments about Genesis and evolution a defence for abandonning the faith.

  301. @ Autumn:

    “Then the Word of God and Spirit of God moved in my life through a painful situation in which God showed me His mercy and truth in power”
    +++++++++

    I am sincerely happy for you, and the powerful, love-filled encounter you have had with God/Jesus/HolySpirit.

    however, such encounters are not respecters of biblical interpretation. people of every biblical interp persuasion encounter the living god in powerful ways.

  302. okrapod wrote:

    @ Beth:
    It is possible, for example, to think that Jesus died to solve the issues of sin and death regardless of what one thinks may be the origins of sin or death. It is possible to say that God has intervened and has promised more intervention (the destruction of the last enemy death) and that God is reconciling the world to himself through Christ regardless of whether we know what happened in the first place or how or when or why it happened. I have not found it possible to arrive at faith however while eliminating the possibility of the spiritual, that there is more to reality than we know, and that God himself can and does engage in relationship(s) with people-and apparently is delighted to do so. But He does not explain to us his every move.

    You, (and anyone else) are very welcome to come over to the BioLogos discussion forum and pose whatever theological/science questions you can come up with. People there like to chew on these sorts of issues. https://discourse.biologos.org/

  303. dee wrote:

    Wow! How wonderful that you know, for sure, what the Bible says about creation and that you know you are not deceived by Satan and that the rest of us are deceived. Ken

    And a job, if she wants one – paid for, he hopes, by the tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky!

  304. Where are the missing links? There should be millions of them, but not one has ever been discovered, not one. Yes, they falsified a bunch of data, filed down some pigs teeth, and painted some bones, but all was proved to be a hoax. There should be millions. What kind of animal was Job describing in Chpt. 40. Looks like a dinosaur to me, what else could it be? The problem is that people don’t read their Bible, they listen to some professor in collage, and because they do not know the word of God he walks all over them, and they lose their religion, which they never had. If the earth were billions of years old, so also would be the sun. Anything that is on fire is burning up. One solar flare from the sun can cause havoc on the earth today. What about only 1 million years ago. How could anything have lived on the earth, it would have been burned up, let alone 4 billion years ago. Just because you can not explain it does not mean it can not be explained. All evidence points to the universe expanding, if it is expanding faster than the speed of light, that would explain the universe looking older than it is. Do not try and make the Bible fit the universe, the Bible is way to big. Make the universe fit the Bible. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will never pass away. @ Beth D:

  305. @ Bobby:
    I have some bad news for you. I remember, years ago, using your argument. I got taken to school. There are thousands of missing links. Google it.

    As for Job, you have no idea what Leviathan looks like. It just means it was big. It does not mean it was a dinosaur.

    As for reading the Bible, I have read it very carefully as have the many Christians who believe that evolution and faith are not contradictory. You say that is the problem? How the heck do you know what I, along with people like Francis Collins, read? You are insulting your brothers and sisters in Christ with deliberate lies.

    Finally, your argument about the sun, the universe expanding, etc, sound like talking points that you learned in a Ken Ham seminar. It is long on weak talking points and embarrassingly short on science. I would recommend that you carefully read the scientific realities that are well spelled out by Christians in the American Scientific Affiliation or Reasons to Believe. But only do so if you are willing to have your world rocked.

  306. @ Bobby:
    There is not single readily corrected misconception in your comment. I suggest beginning a self education in both science and how it relates to God’s Word with the posts given under the creationism entry in the categories menu.

    Many of us regulars commenting at TWW are both Christian in the fundamental sense of accepting Jesus as Lord and also trained in various branches of science. Science is simply a careful study of the way the universe God created works. I second Dee’s comment that the ASA is also a good place for information reconciling science and our Christian faith.

    We would not be having discussions like this on the internet if the basic science was not correct.

  307. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Science is simply a careful study of the way the universe God created works.

    This is true of scientists who happen to be Christians, but evolution as an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing is used by non-christians of various shapes and sizes to show that we now have an explanation that eliminates God or renders him more or less redundant.

    I think this is why some YEC are so stubborn, and I have some sympathy with them, in that instead of the heavens revealing the glory of God they reveal how wonderful the creation itself is to have evolved in such a manner, thereby worshipping the creation itself. Some of Dawkins’ sayings are an example of this. To endorse evolution is perceived to be siding with the enemies of the faith, something that snarky comments about Ken Ham (and they are not difficult to find) only reinforces.

    There is a very real fear (I’m not saying necessarily justified) that anything other than AiG type recent creation is to doubt God, and there are some whose pride in modern scientific discovery leads them to disparage Genesis in a way that starts to get reminiscent of atheists who consider it ‘mythological nonsense from middle-eastern goat herders’.

    When God creates a new heaven and a new earth, we will get a chance to see just how long it takes him. 🙂

  308. Bobby wrote:

    Do not try and make the Bible fit the universe, the Bible is way to big. Make the universe fit the Bible. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will never pass away

    His Word is Jesus! And God is way bigger than the Bible. If you believe that all there is to know about God and His universe can fit into the pages of the Bible, then you worship a small god.

  309. Ken wrote:

    OldJohnJ wrote:

    Science is simply a careful study of the way the universe God created works.

    This is true of scientists who happen to be Christians, but evolution as an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing is used by non-christians of various shapes and sizes to show that we now have an explanation that eliminates God or renders him more or less redundant.

    My quoted statement is applies to all scientists. I agree that world views held by Christian and nonchristian scientists may, in fact probably will, differ.

    Evolution is not all there is to science. In particular, the big bang theory describes the start of the universe and when combined with the 2011 Nobel winning work of Saul Perlmutter showing the increasing rate of expansion of the universe indicates our universe is a one time thing, not one instance of an infinitely repeating sequence.

    Evolution is the study of how life developed on our planet. The start of life, as I stated earlier in these comments, is an open scientific question. Once there was a first simple but self replicating organism evolution is the explanation of how present life evolved from it.

    I believe it is appropriate for current science to suggest how the first 11 chapters of Genesis are interpreted. ALL readings of the Bible in this current age ARE interpretations, even by those well versed in the languages and cultures of the age that originated it.

    Ken Ham’s desire to build a Genesisworld amusement park while trashing science is well deserving of snark. I refrained from offering any contributions to the Deebs 2016 predictions post.

  310. @ OldJohnJ:
    Thank you so much for having my back on this post. I have been so terrible busy caring for my sick parents and I was relieved when I saw you on this, putting your science background to god use. You are the best!!!!!

  311. @ dee:
    Thanks for the thanks. But, considering the topic, I think I would have made the same comments even if you hadn’t called my attention to the post.

  312. Just to add to the mix:
    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/01/05/why-dont-more-scientists-believe-creation/
    Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, the newest addition to our research staff here at AiG, shared in a recent interview why he thinks so many scientists reject biblical creation, despite the evidence that confirms God’s Word:

    I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it. Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians. We know from Romans 1 that non-Christians have a spiritual bias and deliberately suppress the truth. So the Scripture tells us that, yes, the vast majority of them have a compelling spiritual reason to ignore what we’re saying. And so, practically, the way it works itself out, is they never bother to consider it.

    Also, most people go through the public school system, and they hear from an early age just evolution. They never hear, and they are not taught even to consider, an alternative hypothesis. So they are taught from an early age to suppress the truth, and so this is just the fruit of an educational system that ignores the opposition.

    Also, by and large, they just don’t read our literature. They’re ignorant. Now, sadly, the professing Christians who hold evolution (for example, the BioLogos community) also seem to practice the same thing. In the few interactions I’ve had with their scholars, whether it’s theologians or scientists, they are clueless about anything scholarly that we’ve written. I’ll ask them, “Name the last young earth creationist scholarly book you’ve read.” The response: “I don’t know.” Have you read Coming to Grips with Genesis? No. Have you read Earth’s Catastrophic Past? No. So why don’t more people accept this? Because they’re totally ignorant of what we’ve printed. And they don’t want to consider it.

    And so to me that’s the answer to the question, “Why don’t more people believe it?” They never consider it; a lot of them probably don’t want to consider it because this obviously strikes at the very heart of their worldview, and Romans 1 says that it’s not just that there’s some indirect “Oh, I might have to think about Christianity.” No, the things of God are clearly seen from what has been made, so the creation issue strikes at the heart of their cherished beliefs, and they have to suppress it.

  313. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    Prior to the quote on the page you quote Ham says “Our many talented speakers and I clearly show how observational science confirms God’s Word. And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports the Bible, many people still reject biblical creation. Why do so many, including scientists, fail to see the truth of the history of God’s Word?”. I note that there are no links given to any such information. My “fraud” post referenced above contains a detailed analysis of two of these examples of “overwhelming evidence” from the AIG web site and what they actually show (confirm old age for the Earth) and what they don’t show (evidence for a young Earth).

    I would like to complement Ken Ham on one thing. He has the most profound understanding of the HL Mencken quote usually paraphrased as “Nobody ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American public” of anybody since PT Barnum.

  314. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Why don’t more people believe it?” They never consider it; a lot of them probably don’t want to consider it because this obviously strikes at the very heart of their worldview, and Romans 1 says that it’s not just that there’s some indirect “Oh, I might have to think about Christianity.” No, the things of God are clearly seen from what has been made, so the creation issue strikes at the heart of their cherished beliefs, and they have to suppress it.

    So, that applies to me, my husband, a bunch of my friends, Old John J, the man mentioned in this story, the members of the ASA-All Christians, all considered the Bible, all believe the Bible, all accept evolution? Ham refuses to acknowledge that there are many Christians who believe evolution. He blows us off and says we are denying the doctrine of the atonement. And Christians believe what he says. Drives me batty.

  315. dee wrote:

    So, that applies to me, my husband, a bunch of my friends, Old John J, the man mentioned in this story, the members of the ASA-All Christians, all considered the Bible, all believe the Bible, all accept evolution? Ham refuses to acknowledge that there are many Christians who believe evolution. He blows us off and says we are denying the doctrine of the atonement. And Christians believe what he says. Drives me batty.

    This same applies to beliefs on gender roles.

  316. @ Nancy2:
    Unfortunately, it applies to many, many different doctrinal issues.. It seems that mankind is quick to draw sides, and make it us against them… in many it appeals to our pride… “I have the correct way/answer/theology/etc, and you do not….”
    It then gets real nasty when people cover over the truth, or outright lie to support their “side”… So much of WW is about organizations covering over the truth, misleading, or outright lying… and do not forget the intoxication of power… we see allot of this on WW as well…

  317. OldJohnJ wrote:

    @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    Prior to the quote on the page you quote Ham says “Our many talented speakers and I clearly show how observational science confirms God’s Word. And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports the Bible, many people still reject biblical creation. Why do so many, including scientists, fail to see the truth of the history of God’s Word?”. I note that there are no links given to any such information. My “fraud” post referenced above contains a detailed analysis of two of these examples of “overwhelming evidence” from the AIG web site and what they actually show (confirm old age for the Earth) and what they don’t show (evidence for a young Earth).
    I would like to complement Ken Ham on one thing. He has the most profound understanding of the HL Mencken quote usually paraphrased as “Nobody ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American public” of anybody since PT Barnum.

    I agree with this post. I was raised YEC, but as I continued to learn science and scientific method, I realized YEC is not science at all. In contrast to YEC claim that most scientist do not know the YEC arguements/science, when those of that do look at it we are shocked/disgusted. Also, there is no distinction between historical/current science, and science can predict/guide investigators looking into the past… Scientific understanding can predict explain some verifiable past…

  318. Nancy2 wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Ham refuses to acknowledge that there are many Christians who believe evolution. He blows us off and says we are denying the doctrine of the atonement. And Christians believe what he says. Drives me batty.
    This same applies to beliefs on gender roles.

    Christians have been ignoring/misapplying unbiblical beliefs since the time of Christ. The Apostle Peter wanted new Christians to follow Christ and the law. Christians in Corinth said nothing about another believer who slept with his father’s wife. Today, many Christians ignore very clear teachings on divorce and remarriage. People want to believe what they want to believe. I said it here a few years ago that applying secular beliefs to how God created man and the world we live in is dangerous. Evolution,in its entirety, is unbiblical. If you want to BELIEVE in it, go ahead. I’d rather stake my claim and believe on a bible that has proved to be correct time and time again. Even when the “experts” have stated otherwise.
    Real quick point about the “church” misapplying scripture as it relates to the world being flat and ignoring real science, the bible CLEARLY states that the world is ROUND in Isaiah 40:22 ” it is He that sits upon the circle of the earth”. You see, the author of the Bible knew the shape of the earth before science could prove it. The author of the bible also knew how the world started because he was there. We can trust the bible for truth. Why apply the “fact” of evolution to your beliefs by men who don’t even believe in God. Why apply something that the bible clearly argues against?
    Continue to believe in evolution. That’s your prerogative. But realize that there is a cost in misapplying/misusing scripture to suit ones own personal bias.

  319. Somewhereintime wrote:

    the bible CLEARLY states that the world is ROUND in Isaiah 40:22 ” it is He that sits upon the circle of the earth”.

    Geometrically speaking, a circle IS FLAT. The earth is more like a warped sphere.

    I asked once before, but you did not answer, so I’ll ask again: Please explain the passage in Joshua concerning the sun and moon standing still. Do you believe that the sun and moon revolve around the earth?

  320. Somewhereintime wrote:

    But realize that there is a cost in misapplying/misusing scripture to suit ones own personal bias.

    Using scripture to support personal biases works both ways. The repudiation of scientific understanding shown by YEC and anti evolution advocates calls our faith into question by many of those outside of it. Present cosmology supports the concept of a beginning of our universe (big bang) and also indicates it does not have a built in ending. Once there is life evolution provides an excellent explanation for its diversity. Similarity of genes for the same biological function across different species is a strong indicator of common origins. As I stated earlier the origin of life is an open scientific question. There are places in the process that some of us feel require the intervention of God.

  321. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Once there is life evolution provides an excellent explanation for its diversity

    Do you believe that God guided evolution, that change and development had a goal in mind, a purpose? I would assume as a Christian you probably do.

    As a non-scientist, I have a problem with evolution (common descent) in that it is regarded as random, the result of chance (despite what Dawkins says!), it had and has no purpose, it was never going anywhere. Some species survived, some didn’t. This turns the biblical God into a deist entity at best, someone largely irrelevant to the earth as we know it. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. (Dawkins)

    It is, if you like, the evolutionary equivalent of ‘God created the fossils to deceive unbelievers into thinking the world was old’. Except in the case of evolution, he hid himself from the process so completely that it looks like he was not involved at all. Any attempt to see the hand of God in it is blind faith, believing something for which there is, quite literally, no evidence.

  322. Ken wrote:

    Any attempt to see the hand of God in it is blind faith, believing something for which there is, quite literally, no evidence.

    That’s rather extreme – you almost make it sound like the Bible.

  323. Nancy2 wrote:

    Somewhereintime wrote:
    the bible CLEARLY states that the world is ROUND in Isaiah 40:22 ” it is He that sits upon the circle of the earth”.
    Geometrically speaking, a circle IS FLAT. The earth is more like a warped sphere.
    I asked once before, but you did not answer, so I’ll ask again: Please explain the passage in Joshua concerning the sun and moon standing still. Do you believe that the sun and moon revolve around the earth?

    Nancy2 … So you are saying the earth is flat? Hmmm…
    I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However I DO believe that the moon revolves around the earth.

    Quick question… Have you ever seen a sunrise or a sunset? …… Or do you call it an earthrise or an earthset?

  324. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However I DO believe that the moon revolves around the earth.

    But, in the book of Joshua, the Bible says that the SUN and the moon stood still.
    How does the sun stand still when the earth revolves around the sun? The Bible does not say that the earth stopped revolving. It says the sun and the moon stood still.

  325. Nancy2,

    I bet that in your entire life that you have said at least once “wow, what a beautiful sunset”. Scientifically , it’s inaccurate … And you know it …but it is collectively said because that is how it appears to everyone. Same thing in Joshua.

    I have no problem that the bible says that the Sun and Moon stood still. I believe it. It was obviously a miracle anyhow. I’m guessing that because of that one verse you are disproving the bible as not being scientifically inaccurate?

    Also, do you still believe the earth to be flat?

  326. Ken wrote:

    Do you believe that God guided evolution, that change and development had a goal in mind, a purpose?

    I feel unguided evolution provides an adequate explanation for much, maybe most, of life. The random mutations and the survival of the fittest paradigm seems to adequately describe evolution. I also believe that God has intervened in a few places, giving we humans a capability of knowing morality being the primary one. We alone, as a species, seem to have a moral sense but the garden parable in Genesis indicates we collectively have failed to follow the God given moral precepts. The first instance of life and our linguistic ability may also be godly intervention but I prefer not to invoke “God in the gaps” arguments.

    Jesus’ sojourn here on Earth emphasized this moral message and also showed how forgiveness for moral failings could be obtained. The various forms of abuse chronicled here at TWW indicate moral failure still pervades our society and that much of our corporate church suffers from it.

  327. Figures, you can make up lies and that’s ok. But you can’t handle the truth. You know my email address, email me and maybe I can help you to get out of the ditch. You have never been saved, that’s why you can believe a lie. You don’t won’t the light to come in and expose you evil heart, I know I was lost once to. Do not ignore the knocking, open the door and let the light in. Jesus said that witch proceeds out of the mouth is from the heart, and when you open your mouth you expose your heart. I know you are not right, but I can help. Now you can ignore the knocking and act like you do not hear it, but no one will stand before God with an excuse. He who knows to do right and does not do it, to him it is a sin. I will know by your reply if I’m casting my pearls before swine. Bobby

  328. In my best Dee impersonation, “Good night!”

    (that “witch” (sic) proceeds out of the mouth … of Satin?)

  329. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Also, do you still believe the earth to be flat?

    Nancy2 was not, of course, claiming the earth to be flat. Quite the reverse: she was pointing out that a plain reading of scripture would support this belief. To be honest, I don’t think her broader point escaped you either: that each and every fragment of scripture must be interpreted before it is accepted, and everybody who reads the bible does this. Everyone makes a choice, subconscious or otherwise, about whether they will take a given fragment of scripture as being standalone and/or “literal”, or metaphorical, or something else.

    Whilst I appreciate your warning:

    Continue to believe in evolution. That’s your prerogative. But realize that there is a cost in misapplying/misusing scripture to suit ones own personal bias.

    … I cannot help but reciprocate, because I hope you are aware of the danger you are flirting with. This statement is a ringing accusation, of a very serious nature. Misapplying or misusing scripture to suit one’s own personal bias is a contemptuous act of rebellion against God. If, then, you are guilty of the same thing, you will be judged according to the measure with which you judge. Every single scripture-fragment of which you are aware, but which you do not obey to the strict letter in as literal a sense as you interpret Genesis, will stand as a potential testimony against you. Why didn’t you obey it literally? Could it have been to suit your own personal bias? If not, and you are to be allowed to interpret it as you see fit (or, if you prefer, as seems obvious to you), why did you not extend that same grace to your fellow-believers?

    Everyone who has ever read the bible – you and me included – has made a whole lot of decisions on how to obey it. The Creation Museum does not, for instance, have a Healing Section in which any visitors who are ill are healed, thereby proving the currently-applicable truth of scripture. Despite the many clear statements in the NT about the miraculous, many creationists are also – inexplicably – cessationists.

    Evidently, Somewhereintime, you are not one: I cannot believe you would dare to be so liberal with NT scripture at the same time as making the accusation I cited above. Much less would you be steered towards such a conclusion simply by observing a lack of miracles in the church – that would be to allow scientific observation to over-rule God’s word. But I equally can’t believe you are the first believer ever to come to a reading of scripture that is free of personal bias. For your own good: please, please, think very carefully before you decide we choose doctrines simply because we want to.

  330. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Excellent reply/points. Also, given my profession career, I am “in the middle” of the precieved, scientific/secular/heathen world, and the “characterization/stereotype” that YEC make of this world is not at all accurate. Many of my colleagues are agnostic and sympathetic to the concept of a spirit world/reality beyond the physical world…. Just do not impose “your” interpretation of scripture on the scientific method. The experiences of Galileo Galilei weigh heavy… Also, Richard Dawkins does NOT speak for most of the scientist I know…..

  331. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    That has to be one of the finest rebuttals to the “you are not following the Bible” YEC that I have ever read. That deserves a post of its own and i right use it one of these days if you do not mind.

  332. Bobby wrote:

    You have never been saved, that’s why you can believe a lie.

    Bless your heart Bobby. God must be grateful to have someone like you who can help him out in terms of who is saved or not saved.

    Here’s the deal. You broad brush everyone who does not agree with your narrow interpretation of Scripture. By this I mean “Repent and believe exactly what Bobby says to believe then you will be saved.” In other words, your Bible says that one must believe in both Jesus and Young Earth Creationism to be saved-something I have never read. Never forget that the Pharisees put burdens on the people through their interpretation of the law. Jesus said that they were snakes.

    I truly appreciate your comment since you exhibit the same arrogant attitude that Ken Ham exhibits. Your comment will remain as an example of the narrow minded baloney that is found in certain *obviously we are saved and they are not* creationist circles today.

    However, the swine comment was over the top. To believe that your brothers and sisters in Christ are swine because they do not believe in a 6,000 year earth is beyond the pale. Your comments will now go into moderation. If they continue in the same vein, your comments will not be approved and you can go back and tell your BFFs how you were blocked by TWW for *speaking the truth.*

  333. @ dee:
    Actually, i have been called much worse than swine… As Nick listed, I could go on and on about how fundamentalist and/or YEC are selective in their choosing of which scripture to be literal which are not… In fact, I have watched with some amusement different strains of fundamentalism and YEC “battle” over which is more pure in taking scripture literally.. it can become quite an extreme art… It would be very funny if it did not have such serious implications.. The level of emotional response to this topic usually tells me allot about the faith, or lack thereof, of the personals involved. When I do discuss the whole YEC issue with a YEC, I sometimes internally count who long, or how many back and froths it takes to the point at which “being a Christian” or “you are throwing it all out” is brought up..

  334. dee wrote:

    God must be grateful to have someone like you who can help him out

    You have no idea…

    Best regards,
    God

  335. dee wrote:

    However, the swine comment was over the top.

    Actually, unbeknownst to Bobby, swine a intelligent creatures. I know because we use to raise hogs. For years, I fed and tended to anywhere between 50 and 70 head on a daily basis! I had two pet pigs – one who ran loose and followed me around like a dog, and a 3-legged one that ran away when she was small and lost a leg in a fox trap.
    Yes, pigs are quite dirty. They roll in mud to stay cool because they cannot sweat. That’s just the way God made them. No, you can’t make silk purses out of sow’s ears, and I certainly wouldn’t throw my pearls in a peg pen, but swine surely do deserve a place of honor on the table!
    Oh, and swine will eat snakes – dead or alive. Cruncha, cruncha!

  336. @ dee:

    I’m honoured by this – feel free, of course… I think it’s worth adding a postscript though.

    Daisy (and probably other Wartburgers – apologies to everyone I’ve forgotten!) has occasionally commented at her frustration at being labelled “anti-science” because she believes in a young earth. I suppose there’s a similarity between that, and the stuck records within the hardcore YEC movement endlessly claiming that you either agree with them or you “reject scripture”. Daisy has never claimed this, of course.

    I’ve mentioned this before, but the first geologists – regardless of religious affiliation, and many of them had none – believed the earth was thousands of years old. They didn’t set out to believe otherwise, but were eventually compelled to by the accumulated weight of evidence they and their peers had amassed. Collecting this evidence took many thousands of working hours across many working lifetimes and, for that matter, many intricate sub-disciplines of the earth sciences (which themselves encompass much more than “geology”!). Likewise with
     Red shifts and the age of the universe
     Stellar astronomy and the age of stars
     Radioactivity and mineral dating
     Et
     Cetera

    It’s easy to assess all of the available biblical evidence; there’s just a few pages of it. But very few people realistically spend enough time in the physical sciences to gather enough awareness of enough evidence, and enough subject-matter expertise to weigh it, such that they are able to make a realistic evaluation of it. (Regardless of what they decide it says.) Now, we might tell them: trust the experts, because they’ve done the data-gathering and the calculations. But to be fair, TWW doesn’t really exist to tell people to trust the experts! In ecclesiastical settings, that rarely ends well…

  337. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Daisy (and probably other Wartburgers – apologies to everyone I’ve forgotten!) has occasionally commented at her frustration at being labelled “anti-science” because she believes in a young earth. I suppose there’s a similarity between that, and the stuck records within the hardcore YEC movement endlessly claiming that you either agree with them or you “reject scripture”. Daisy has never claimed this, of course.

    And then there’s Muff Potter, who defies conventional taxonomy altogether.

  338. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yes, pigs are quite dirty. They roll in mud to stay cool because they cannot sweat. That’s just the way God made them. No, you can’t make silk purses out of sow’s ears, and I certainly wouldn’t throw my pearls in a peg pen, but swine surely do deserve a place of honor on the table!

    What you did there, see it, I did.

  339. @ dee:
    In some ways I would prefer to let him continue to post. These types of posts do more to demonstrate the danger of at least some YECist th anything the rest of us ever say. The degree of nastiness that can come out is quite amazing, actually.

  340. Two comments not approved. The nastiness was’t the reason even though he was nasty. His comments were getting weird and I do not have time to deal with someone who is off kilter, if you get my drift.

  341. @ dee:

    Back in 1994, in the weeks before the impact between comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Jupiter, there was an upsurge of astrological craziness. It prompted the late Sir Patrick Moore to observe: Astronomy attracts cranks and crackpots rather like a jam-jar attracts wasps.

    I’m sure you can see where I’m headed here.

  342. Bobby wrote:

    You have never been saved, that’s why you can believe a lie. You don’t won’t the light to come in and expose you evil heart, I know I was lost once to.

    You mean I just can’t be a Mensch (Yiddish for good person of honor & integrity) and leave it at that?

  343. Bridget wrote:

    @ Bobby:

    Wow! You know who is and who isn’t a believer. You must be God’s right hand man. Unbelievable.

    Whatever would God do on Judgment Day without Bobby there at His right had telling Him who’s REALLY Saved and who’s not?

    “ME SHEEP! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT! HIM GOAT!”

  344. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Back in 1994, in the weeks before the impact between comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Jupiter, there was an upsurge of astrological craziness.

    Same in 1981 with the Jupiter Effect. Started out as semi-astrological Fringe Science and made the jump into Rapture Scare Christian Dogma.

    It prompted the late Sir Patrick Moore to observe: Astronomy attracts cranks and crackpots rather like a jam-jar attracts wasps.

    Similar to “You don’t have to be crazy to be an Egyptologist, but it helps.”

  345. Nancy2 wrote:

    Oh, and swine will eat snakes – dead or alive. Cruncha, cruncha!

    They will also eat people.

    Remember “Wu’s Pigs” in Deadwood? That was fact-based. A Pig Farm was a common way to dispose of murder victims.

    And according to Ken Burns’ Civil War PBS miniseries, in one Civil War battle, some pigs wandered onto the battlefield after sunset; all through the night you could hear the screams of wounded being eaten by the pigs.

    And occasionally pig farmers have fatal accidents involving their livestock which leave no body.

  346. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    This statement is a ringing accusation, of a very serious nature. Misapplying or misusing scripture to suit one’s own personal bias is a contemptuous act of rebellion against God.

    Isn’t that the original meaning of “Taking God’s Name in Vain”?

  347. OldJohnJ wrote:

    In particular, the big bang theory describes the start of the universe and when combined with the 2011 Nobel winning work of Saul Perlmutter showing the increasing rate of expansion of the universe indicates our universe is a one time thing, not one instance of an infinitely repeating sequence.

    The Jewish idea of Time as Linear instead of Aristotle’s eternal Steady State or Hinduism’s & Buddhism’s idea of Time as infinitely repeating cycle.

  348. Bobby wrote:

    Where are the missing links? There should be millions of them, but not one has ever been discovered, not one.

    Flashback to when the old God’s Creatures newsgroup was blowing apart over Evolution, specifically my example of how that particular argument is rigged:

    1) Take a handful of coins from your pocket. These represent a finite number of fossils in an evolutionary sequence.
    2) Put two of these coins on the tabletop, about half a meter apart.
    3) YEC points to the gap between the two coins and goes “Where’s the Missing Link?”
    4) Place one coin between the two.
    5) YEC points to the two gaps between the three coins and goes “Where’s THAT missing link? And THAT one?”
    6) Repeat until you run out of coins. (Remember, the number of fossils is finite.)
    7) YEC points to all the gaps and crows in triumph.

  349. zooey111 wrote:

    republican mother wrote:

    We have YEC curriculum at our house and some of it is interesting. But my daughter has also read Origin of the Species, where she learned about the lowest evolved race on Earth: the Irish.

    The IRISH???? (Irish person here). (Irascible Irish person).

    Ah, the wonders of 19th Century Scientific Racism….

  350. Nancy2 wrote:

    Has anyone noticed that we are all flying German flags?

    I can bring my WW1-style Imperial German Naval Ensign from home….

  351. okrapod wrote:

    You have to remember also that among evangelical fundamentalists christianity is first and last about doctrine. Always doctrine. If the doctrine is shown to be in error then the whole system crumbles.

    Purity of Ideology, Comrades.

  352. Lydia wrote:

    Some scholars believe Genesis was written during or after the Babylonian exile. That it was a creation narrative handed down and then written down because, in exile, the Isrealites were forgetting who they were and what had taken place with God’s rescue.

    Personally, I think it may have been written down from oral tradition a few centuries before when the Phonecians (just north of the Jews) invented this thing called an alphabet. But much was probably lost or destroyed when the Babylonians knocked them over and they had to reconstruct their Old Stories from memory.

    And when they reconstructed their creation story in Babylon, they structured it as a PARODY of the then-familiar Babylonian creation myths.

  353. Another comment not approved due to increasing weirdness: accusations of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, etc. Poor guy is getting bent out of shape.

  354. @ dee:
    While many “religious” discussion can bring out strong emotions, it has been my experience that YEC/creationism/evolution brings out the strongest emotions the quickest…. We can all pontificate why, but it really makes for quite the drama….

  355. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:

    It’s certainly up there with the best of them, isn’t it?

    I’m starting to lean towards the belief that I simply won’t discuss the age of the earth with Christians. I’m working on an arsenal of conversation-killers: one- or two-liners that close off the discussion without either attacking the person’s young-earth beliefs or tempting them into sin. There’s just too little chance of any mutual edification happening.

  356. Eagle wrote:

    Here’s the first post of the year. It’s a guest post by Ryan McLaughlin in which he explains why he chose the Eastern Orthodox faith.
    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/what-is-the-orthodox-church-why-would-a-former-evangelical-join-it/

    Great article! I have heard that before, that an Evangelical becomes interested in pre-Reformation church history and then becomes Catholic or Orthodox. As for YEC, that seems to be the default belief of many generic Evangelical churches – so it is not confined to fundamentalist churches.

    Avoiding YEC was one of my goals in finding a church. I left a Lutheran denomination when it became too liberal for me but every conservative Lutheran denomination I found was quite supportive of YEC. I tried to ignore the YEC part but could not. What really did it for me was when I read some announcement that the children of such-and-such Lutheran Church would make a field trip to Ken Ham’s “science” museum. I felt so sad and a little angry that these children would be taught something false that might later cause them to lose faith. I knew I could not support a church that taught that YEC is the only option.

    To make a long story short, I did find a conservative Anglican church that was okay with Old Earth and even evolution! For someone like me it was so liberating to find a church that billed itself as conservative and yet it did not have borrowings from fundamentalism such as YEC. I have noticed that the Catholic and Orthodox churches deal with science better than do many Protestant churches, even Protestant churches that are not explicitly fundamentalist.

  357. zooey111 wrote:

    Now, see, you had the same reaction that I had!! Its so obvious to me: the man is insulting the Creator of the universe, under the guise of “conservative Christian belief”. You just don’t do that! Not if you’re the real deal yourself, you don’t.

    There is an interesting dualism there. On the one hand, God’s book, the Bible, is perfect and without error when read “literally.” On the other hand, God’s other “book,” nature, is something God designed with lies and deceptions all the way through it. It is some sort of spiritual test to deny the physical reality of the universe. I see in this dualism perhaps a faint echo from Gnosticism. That physical realm is bad and full of lies and illusions, and what is more, God made it that way! What is really such a joy is when a strident YEC supporter claims you have no faith or bad faith while he is the one who is telling you that God built all sorts of falsehoods into the universe.

  358. @ Jacob:

    Great comment! The only part I might disagree with is “a faint echo” . . . I might describe it as “a thundering echo.” 🙂

  359. Jacob wrote:

    What is really such a joy is when a strident YEC supporter claims you have no faith or bad faith while he is the one who is telling you that God built all sorts of falsehoods into the universe.

    Thanks for taking a look at this oldish post. Making explicit something many of take for granted is very helpful.

  360. I haven’t read all the comments but I have to say that I’m not at all sure how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled. I used to think they could be, but that was only because I refused to think about it too deeply as I believed strongly in both Christianity and evolution. Now, I only believe in one of those things, and I now think that I had been using a combination of evasion tactics – rationalisation, cognitive dissonance, changing the subject – to maintain both beliefs.

    Evolution involves death. There would be no survival of the fittest without death. There would be no humans without death. Moreover, there would be no Darwinian evolution without killing. Animals killing each other. And there would be no homo sapiens without other hominids killing each other. We survived for the arrival of Jesus and redemption by murdering other hominids. Jesus could not have existed without this murder.

    My point is, brutal, bloody murder is built into the very fabric of evolution. If God chose evolution as his mechanism to make us, then he chose death, he chose murder, he chose pain and suffering and disability as his tools.

    Beyond that, we have all kinds of drives and instincts that make us “ungodly” or “selfish”. The Bible blames these on The Fall, but how do you account for that if a perfectly good God chose to form these drives in us through a process of evolution?

    For example, most Christians think that God requires monogamy, at least until a divorce (which has limited justification or none at all) or the death of a spouse. But it’s pretty clear from that we are a multi-mate species; that while some are capable of strict monogamy we are not, as a species, monogamous. We were not ‘designed’ by evolution to be that way. To give you an example of what I mean, consider that the female of the human species tends to have a strong proclivity for loud vocalisation during sex. A scientist/researcher would say that it lets other males know that she is available for sex (there is far more evidence than just that one observation, of course). A YEC can deny this reality as much as they deny all other reality, but an evolution-believing Christian cannot.

    If God chose evolution as his mechanism for creating human beings and modern plant and animal life then he is responsible for millions of years of suffering prior to humanity’s existence, responsible for the drives that make us selfish enough to kill for our own survival and genetic supremacy, and responsible for using a mechanism that created us as a multi-mate species while knowing that he would demand something very close to monogamy from us. Moreover, he sat back for hundreds of thousands of years of human and hominid suffering until a mere two thousand years ago when he sent Jesus to die for homo sapiens.

    I honestly can’t see how this can be reconciled with Christianity, but even more so I can’t see how it can be reconciled with the idea of a perfectly good God. You can say “He works in mysterious ways”, or that he somehow is blameless in all of this in ways that we humans just can’t understand, but that’s indistinguishable from evading the question. Even if you say that OK, but one day God will end all death and wipe away all suffering, and bring about justice, that doesn’t absolve him of creating/choosing these things and using them as his tools, any more than Hitler would be absolved of the holocaust if he had managed o achieve an Aryan utopia. You could say that evil existed before life existed, that Satan was thrown out of Heaven and down to Earth when the closest thing to life on this planet was some proteins in a humid crevice. But then doesn’t that make Satan as much our father as God? It was his evil – his gifts of suffering and self-interest and disability and death – that designed our DNA.

    It’s also fair to say that involving God in evolution is far from parsimonious. It’s one thing to say “people and animals exist because God made them”; it’s another to say “a purely natural and explicable process made humans and animals… and oh yeah, God was involved in it somehow although we now can’t find any particular spaces to wedge him into the process”. It’s like saying “well, we know that apples fall from trees because of gravity. But that doesn’t mean fairies aren’t pushing them behind the scenes somewhere”, or “we know diseases are always caused by germs, but somehow they’re REALLY caused by genies”.

    I am glad you embrace evolution, and anyone who speaks out against creationism is an ally in my book, but it just isn’t enough to say, as many Christians do “Well, whether God used evolution or creation, I know he made the world somehow”. If you follow evolution to its natural conclusion, Christianity doesn’t make sense.

  361. Are you really sure you want to go down this road? You said  “I used to think they could be, but that was only because I refused to think about it too deeply as I believed strongly in both Christianity and evolution.” Now you have thought about it deeply, unlike all your other Christian brothers and sisters who have not done so. Bless their little hearts. They can’t help it. They are all just shallow thinkers, unlike you who is really, really deep. That is what you sound like.

    Let me clue you in. There are far smarter and more deeply committed Christians than either you ro I and they have thought about it far deeper than you or I have and have seen how evolution does not in anyway negate Christianity. Your comment shows that you have not thought more deeply than a superifcial level, utilizing Answers in Genesis type responses. This one stands out.  “it’s another to say “a purely natural and explicable process made humans and animals… and oh yeah, God was involved in it somehow although we now can’t find any particular spaces to wedge him into the process”. It is downright silly to say that is what scientists like Francis Collins believe and it shows that you have not studied this subject beyond the merely superifical in psite of you assertions that you have *thought about this deeply.*

    Let me challenge you. Before you continue with simplistics *proofs* spend about 2-3 years reading carefully the thoughts of great scientists who are also Christians. It may mean you have to actually study science in such a way that you can understand  their arguments.Go to the American Scientific Affiliation, Biologos, and many, many sites dedicated to carefully explaining how evolution does not contradict Christianity. Then, you might convince others that you are a deeper thinker than your brothers and sisters. For now, your thoughts are merely superficial.