Blog

by Steve Risner

This is part 2 of “Love of the Bible.” I encourage you to read part 1 before getting into this one.

Moving on, we find that Tyler is, again, bashing Ken Ham. It's getting a little creepy. He's a bit obsessed, I guess. He oddly remarks that he's going to get into a 15-year-old article written by Ham. He seems to think 15 years is old and that for some reason evolutionists don't hang on to old things. He (Tyler) believes in a “scientific” idea debunked by Redi and Pasteur hundreds of years ago, so who's behind here? But he then quotes Ken Ham writing something that is spot on. My paraphrase: Can you use the Bible alone and come up with millions of years? Absolutely not.

I guess this is one of those “old” arguments that just won't go away… because it's right. The truth doesn't have an expiration date. Genesis is written in a form that requires it to be read as historical. The language is clear. There is no reason or way to make it say something other than what it says. Tyler has first bought secularism and its ideas and has secondly tried to misrepresent the teachings of Scripture in a biased and slanted way to fit into the secular ideas he's apparently bonded with.

Now this is where the smoke and mirrors are thrown in to dazzle you and make you believe that the Bible is anti-science. The Bible doesn't tell us about earth's orbit (although it does tell us it's suspended on nothing and is a sphere). The Bible can't be used to make a microwave oven, a satellite dish, or do heart transplants. But the origins topic isn't any of these things. The origins topic is a topic very specifically talked about in Genesis, Exodus, many of the Psalms and prophets, as well as in the New Testament. But he uses very common atheist arguments against the Bible's reading (his friend, mind you) to make his point. The Bible doesn't necessarily say the earth is flat. It does use terms that seem to indicate the sun rises and sets, however. But don't we, the uber smart people of the 21st century, do the same thing? We talk like the earth is flat and like the sun comes up and goes down every day. So what? He's using a bait and switch type argument here and it's not very classy. He goes on about the Bible not giving us the diameter of the universe (which, uh, we don't know), black holes, and a bunch of other totally unrelated things. The Bible doesn't give us a recipe for rice crispy treats (unless, according to Tim Hawkins, you're reading the Message Bible) or a good formula for high quality gasoline either. However, this doesn't do anything for Tyler's argument.

Why is he trying to associate whatever randomly pops into his head with the authority of Scripture? I think it's because he's trying to make it look like Biblical creationists are inconsistent when, in fact, he is just nonsensical. He states the moon is not a light source—another atheist argument. To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. And a study of the words used in the passage he's talking about (Genesis 1:15) reveal the words used can mean to become light or to be lit up. Either way, it's a terrible argument atheists use to discredit the Bible, and this is exactly what Tyler is doing. I'm always a little uneasy about believers who join with atheists to fight against their fellow believers. In this case, he's joining with atheists to not just bash a believer but to bash the Bible (his friend that he loves so much).

Tyler gives several of these fallacious examples and then concludes “using the exact same argument” you can use the Bible to disprove anything. The trouble is it's not the exact same argument at all. We commonly see this type of argument from those who don't believe the Bible. It's called equivocation. They love to do this with “evolution” and “science” as well as calling any sort of change in anything in biological “evolution” and then say this is the same as molecules to man evolution. It’s a tactic of deceit.

He then states, “The problem is not in the interpretation of the science.” Sure it is. We have a Book that speaks fairly clearly on the subject. We have nature, often called a book, that we can also “read.” One is clear and intended to give us direct communication. The other is not so clear and is often misunderstood. Tell me which one is more likely to be misinterpreted? He tries to say Biblical creationists read the Bible like a science book. That's not really true. It's not a science book. It's a love letter generated by the mind of God. But found within it, we can trust whatever it says about history, science, psychology, society, human nature, etc. It's a pretty remarkable Book, indeed. He further states that we “...read the Bible in a way that it simply was not meant to be read.” This, to me, seems to assume a lot. Apparently, God has told him how He wanted the Bible to be read and we're doing it improperly, although the message is clear. I'll just leave that statement of his for you to ponder.

So Tyler begins to wrap up his blog post by saying the Biblical authors didn't know this or that about science (I would argue we still don't know much about any of the things he's listed) and then tells us exactly why his entire argument is bogus: why would they? The Holy Spirit must not have felt they needed to know these things. However, He did feel we needed to know a very detailed account of the creation event. Why doubt Him? Why not “take God at His Word” as Tyler mocked? In an unexpected turn, Tyler then laughably states that science tells us “how” these things (biological origins of man and so forth) happened! Can you believe it? They never tell you “how” any of this stuff happened. When pressed, they generally tell you “why” it happened. They have no idea how any of it came about. It's one of the greatest examples of the emperor having no clothes in the history of science.

“It doesn’t take a 'highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar' to tell you which one is a proper use of the text, and which one isn’t.” Well, actually, sometimes it does. But in the case of Genesis 1-8, my 10-year-old can tell you what the text says and likely why. Do you find it odd that Tyler hangs on the authority of scientists who clearly disagree with the Bible but when the authority of a scholar whose specialty is Hebrew is sought after for a clearer Biblical understanding, he's opposed? Why use a scientist to clarify the Bible for you when you can use a Hebrew scholar? Why accept what a scientist says first and then distort the Bible to fit that incorrect assessment of the data?

The beauty we find in the creation account is that it tells us how God, in His majesty, created the universe and everything in it. But it also tells us why He did it. It tells of His indescribable glory, grace, love, and brilliance. Tyler thinks God's love is demonstrated in Darwinian evolution. This is one of the most absurd things I've ever encountered. God's love is found in the creation of man and in the redemption of man. Those two events are the single greatest demonstrations of love in the history of the universe (about 6000 years or so).

In short, don't ever believe for a second that science and Christianity are at odds. They never have been and never will be. In fact, science has progressed as it has because of creationists, not in spite of them. There's no way around this for the skeptic.

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.