Blog

by Steve Risner

[This blog post is part of a series. The previous one is here, and the next one is here.]

Last week I began a series on responding to the questions brought forth by Mr. Tyler Francke in his blog post “Ten Theological Questions No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer.” I just laid a bit of a foundation to what we were dealing with. This week, my focus will be on Mr. Francke’s introduction. My hope in moving through this all rather slowly is that the point will be made very clear. That point: old earth creationism and, to an exceptionally larger degree theistic evolution, are inconsistent and anti-Biblical. The only reason I or any other Biblical creationist cares about this issue at all is because of the push from consensus science (which is anti-science) and from within the Body’s borders to adapt the ever changing, currently popular belief based on incomplete knowledge that has given us these new and theologically unsound beliefs. Why do I care? Why does any Biblical creationist care? Because if we skew the meaning of Genesis, the foundation for every other word written in the Bible, we can not only skew anything we find in the Bible but we can also find nothing for the New Testament to be built upon. I would like to move onto the introduction to Mr. Francke’s blog.

He states quite early on that, “As far as most young-earther proponents are concerned, this is a dispute between science on one side and the Bible on the other, and the Bible will always trump science. Period.” This is actually very early on proving to be an opportunity to expose strawman arguments rather than an intellectual discussion. That’s unfortunate. My experience over the 20+ years in this debate is that it’s difficult to find an opponent to Biblical creation who actually argues against it. What I mean is most of the time the argument is against some distorted version of Biblical creationist beliefs or a completely fabricated point. In this case, we have a very serious misunderstanding of the debate, which, because it's a foundational issue, causes me to take pause. He’s not even clear on what we’re talking about or what my position is, so how can we trust that any of his arguments are sound? Maybe a good question. You see, the argument from my perspective and that of most Biblical creationists (what he terms young-earther which is a misnomer) is not about “science on one side and the Bible on the other.” It never has been and likely never will be. If he believes this is the truth, then discussing it any further will result in us talking past each other while not listening to each other. This is something that happened in the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. Neither man actually spoke to the other. They both spoke past each other and accomplished nothing but a marvelous waste of time—a boring one at that. To suggest this debate is the Bible vs. science is absurd to an exquisite degree. Science, much of which has been founded by creationists, is not at odds with the Bible at all. Frankly, such statements cause me to doubt the genuine nature of the curiosity and love for scientific inquiry Mr. Francke has if he’s beginning this writing with such an unfounded statement. To read more on that topic, you can read this, this, this, this, this, or this. There are likely other blog posts written on this topic you can find at www.worldviewwarriors.org. If you search the blog section, I’m sure you’ll find lots of stuff to read.

He continues by indicating this false idea (about the debate being between science and the Bible) has a problem because there are people who hold the Bible in high regard who also believe in evolution. This is an interesting statement. The Bible makes no mention of anything remotely like Darwinism. It does, in fact, give a very nice historically written piece on how God created the heavens and the earth. Very few doubted this history of creation, and even science worked based on this idea. But since Lyell and Darwin and several others changed the story, we have those who really want to be Christians and like some of the stuff Jesus taught but really also want to accept consensus science (which is anti-science and void of free thinking) on origins. I've written quite a bit on this. You can read a little of that here, here, here, here, or here if you're so inclined. There are many more, but that will likely keep you busy.

There is no reason from the Bible (regardless of where in the Bible we're reading) to accept Genesis as anything other than historical. It's written like it's history. Numerous prophets, apostles, and even Jesus Himself referenced characters in the account. It's clear the Jews believe in the creation account. Even their dating methods are based on it being true. I'm curious how one can hold “in high regard” the Word of God when he can only read it the way the current, popular, and ever-changing culture says he can. There was no reason to ever distort the passages in Genesis (or Exodus or anywhere else the creation story is referenced) until certain men set out, admittedly, to remove the Bible from science. Odd, really, since most of modern science was founded by creationists who believed very similarly to myself—a Biblical creationist. I have often found, and perhaps Mr. Francke is different, that those who hold the Bible “in high regard” and believe in molecules to man evolution have a very watered down version of Christianity they live. Many I've encountered are universalists (believing everyone will be in heaven) or believe that Jesus was only A way rather than THE Way. They are generally soft on sin and are more of the “if it feels good, do it” crowd. Again, perhaps Tyler is not like this. I truly have no idea at this point.

He also claims here that the Bible does not support the Biblical creationist view which is laughable. Come now. The creationist view I hold is based on the Bible. Biblical creationism starts with the Bible. He has chosen, at some point in his life, to use what he will term “science” to tell him how to interpret very clear communication in the Bible. He's actually attempting to meld two different religious views that are opposing. He will hold hands with atheists to mock brothers and sisters in Christ—which seems like it must be the primary point of his website. This is very forward, I realize. I'm not intentionally being harsh. I'm intentionally stating the facts as I see them. Back on point: the Biblical creationist view (what he terms the young-earther view) is based on the Bible. His view, that of the theistic evolutionist, is based on the current, popular, and ever changing culturally accepted interpretation of, again, what he will likely term “science.” He will read Scripture through the lens of his “science” while I will view the world around me through the lens of the Bible. Quite different, I believe.

Finally, in his introduction, he wants to stresses a point by repeating the word “really” an excessive amount of times. I realize this is to offer up a list of links, but it seems rather silly. The next time I address this blog post, I intend to touch on each of the links in this list. Until then, be encouraged and know for certain that the Bible is true and science isn't opposed to it and never has been. Men with incorrect interpretations of what they've observed can be at odds with the Bible, but that's clearly not the same thing.

This is a difference of opinion, essentially, of whether the communication God uses directly in His Word is harder to understand than the revelation of Himself in nature. Let's be honest here: nature is not easy to read and our understanding of it is always evolving. What we “knew” 100 years ago is laughed at today. But God's Word is steadfast. It doesn't change and His Word has been preserved for us remarkably well. Incorrectly interpreting evidence to fit with a secular worldview is no excuse for improperly reading a message from God Almighty.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.