Still Catching Up

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, December 3, 2015 0 comments

by Steve Risner

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

Lord willing, this will be the second to last blog post in a series written in response to theistic evolutionist Tyler Francke’s blog posts you can find here and here. We are moving towards the end of his writings here and, at last, have discovered something that is at least in the realm of theology. His claim is that all of these blog posts are about theology, but we’re having a hard time confirming that. Let’s get right into it.

So Tyler is harping on Ken Ham from the Ham vs. Nye debate that happened in early February 2014. Ken Ham was asked a question by the moderator that went something like this: “Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to admit that the universe is older than 10,000 years and creation did not occur in six days, would you still believe in God, and the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that Jesus was the son of God?” Tyler here believes this is an easy question. Of course you can disbelieve some parts of the Bible while believing other parts (this is essentially his position). Ham is smarter than that and his worldview is a little more consistent than that. You see, the first part of the question is bogus, so the rest of the question is invalid. That's because evidence for an old universe or earth doesn't exist. That's because evidence is just evidence. The one looking at the evidence gives it a voice. This is pretty basic stuff, but is generally a mystery to the evolutionist. Evidence only says whatever the one viewing it wants it to say. But Tyler’s reasoning behind his response is great! I’m excited to get into it.

Tyler believes the question could be reworded this way: “If you were to — hypothetically — set those beliefs [a young earth and 6-day creation] aside for just a moment, would you still be a Christian?” This is a great question. If there was no real perfect creation, no Fall or original sin, no one named Adam, and no death because of sin, could you still be a Christian? Nearly all of the doctrine we find in the New Testament has origins that reside in the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Much doctrine, in fact, is rooted in the first few chapters. The entire reason the Bible and this whole history was written — Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets through to Jesus Christ — was ALL because of a literal creation account, the Fall, and separation from God found in early Genesis. I’ve covered this before in other writings.

Essentially, what Tyler is saying here is, “Can you believe anything you want and still be a Christian?” I suggest that this is a softball pitch for you to knock out of the park — no! Of course you can’t believe whatever you want. Tyler exposed his anti-Christian beliefs when he stated that “…the God of Genesis 6-9 doesn’t really sound like God to me.” He seems to think you can decide what you like in the Bible and what you don't like, and therefore you can reject those parts. This is something extremely important. He claims the Bible doesn't teach this stuff clearly, when there are at least 2 full chapters dedicated to the creation. These early chapters in Genesis also tell us about the Fall and the consequences of it. They tell us that because of sin, death (physical and spiritual) resulted. What followed immediately after the Fall was the slaying of animals. You see, the Bible does explicitly state that, because of sin, something must shed its blood. For the Hebrews under the Old Covenant, that meant sheep, bulls, and doves were sacrificed to pay for a person's sins. For new covenant believers, it meant Jesus Christ's blood was shed for our sin. The elementary nature of these truths is foundational to Christianity, and these truths are lost in theistic evolution. For a little more on the importance of offering a life for forgiveness, you can read this. We're talking about Christianity 101 here. The wages of sin is death. Animals were killed by the thousands in the Jewish temple for quite some time. They were killed because a life was demanded to pay for sin. Jesus died on a cross for our sins. He died physically on that cross. Separation from God is the second death, but I believe it's fairly obvious from Scripture that we're talking about both in terms of man's consequences concerning the Fall. For time's sake, I need to leave that there.

Let's quickly take a look at this from the opposite direction. Would Bill Nye reject deep time and evolution if just one piece of evidence caused him to admit the earth was about 6000 years old? The answer is clearly no, because many evidences were and have been suggested and he maintains his position. This in and of itself shows the juvenile nature of Tyler’s argument here. Nye doesn't accept the evidence for a young earth and Tyler is okay with this. Ham doesn't accept the evidence for an old earth presented and Ham is somehow a moron because of this. It’s pretty easy to see the two-faced nature of the evolutionist. In many cases, when I'm told there is no evidence for ___________ (whatever you want to insert), I will ask what sort of evidence one would accept. Now, to be honest, it's very rare to get an answer to this question. But I do think it's worth asking. I would also turn the question around for Tyler and simply ask, “If God showed Himself in all His majesty and glory and spoke audibly that He created everything in six literal days, would you believe him?" If you answer yes (which Tyler seems to think is the obvious answer) then you're in luck. In Exodus 20:11 God did exactly that. And yet Tyler doesn't believe God or the clear account in the Bible. Do you see the double standard?

Ham said the only way to make sense of the Gospel is through a natural reading of Genesis — a literal reading. This, of course, is true. It does lead to a slippery slope of disbelief if we fail to do this. How many atheists accepted evolution and then lost faith in the Bible? How many theistic evolutionists are universalists? How many have no idea what the Bible actually says and have atrocious theology?

I guess the bottom line here is that my faith (and that of Ken Ham) is not founded in the creation account. It's founded on the clear teaching of the Bible, hence we have a Biblical worldview. You cannot deny that Scripture states fairly unambiguously that God created the heavens and the earth in a week's time. The case for when is fairly easy to put together as well when we do the math. You see, we have two books here to read—the Bible and nature. One is a clear communication with an intended message while the other is very vague and extremely ambiguous. It's easily misread and has been misread many times over the last few thousand years. Phlogiston, proteins being the source of heredity, bad air, the health benefits of cigarettes, the aether, the expanding earth hypothesis, the blank slate theory, and so many others can be put in the “oops” file of science. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes, but this supports the fact that nature is a book written in a very difficult language to understand.

Tyler goes further. He says that Ham's point is a serious problem because it's not clearly taught in Scripture. That's odd. I just used a page and a half to show you it actually is critical to the Bible making sense and all of us needing a Savior. No death prior to the Fall is critical to the harmony of the Gospel. And if death and disease are part of God's perfect creation, I'm a little worried. The Bible tells us that creation will be restored to the time before the Fall. If that means a place where death and disease and pain reign, I'm not sure I'm interested.

Next week my intention is to finish up this round of blog posts on these writings of Tyler Francke. We'll see how that goes. Thank you for reading and remember: the Bible is God's Word and was intended for us. It wasn't just intended for sheepherders in the ancient middle or near east. It's as relevant today as it was when it was written. Go study it!

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.