One of the great traps people in the origins debate fall into is in how to handle explanations. Atheists and theistic evolutionists in particular have frequently accused young earth creationists (YEC) for “lacking explanatory power.” This comes from what they call the “God did it” argument. However the problem with such an argument is that they are looking for a natural explanation when it is in actuality a supernatural explanation. Genesis 1 repeatedly states “God said… and it was.” Hebrews 11:3 then states that which is visible was made by that which is invisible. In other words, God used no natural means in creating the universe. There is more. Genesis is not merely “God did it;” it gives what order God creating things, how long he chose to do it in, the method he used to do it, and how much time has passed since he did it.
But that is not a sufficient explanation for many skeptics, mostly because they want the natural means, so they can try to figure out how to do it without God. So allow me to turn the tables. If the Bible’s explanations lack the explanatory power they prefer, do they provide anything better? I find many Evolution supporters argue for their explanations the same way Bill Nye did in his debate with Ken Ham. One of the points Nye made was about the origins of sexual reproduction. He very accurately described the benefits of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction. However, he failed to address the question he was answering: how did it come about? You will find this tactic everywhere in any old earth circle of any level. The explanations given are what they do, not how they got there, and such explanations actually make much more sense under a Biblical model than they do under their own. Yes, sexual production gives a lot of benefits. We can see God’s design in that. And how it works, even in a fallen world, makes sense if it were designed as such. So far no explanation for HOW it got there from secularists exists. There are lots of ad hoc stories, but none of the science they claim to have is ever brought forth.
In reality, the purpose of all these attempted explanations is so they can say, “There is no need to invoke God.” Keep that phrase in mind; it is a purposeful intention to keep God out of the equation as much as possible. They have already ruled God out as being a possible answer in their minds, and even if every option besides God were exhausted, they would still keep searching for another one to keep him out. My response to them is they have not built a sufficient case to revoke God from the equation. They never will. If they want God out of the equation they need to greatly step up their game.
A friend of mine gave a great image about how explanations need to be: If it is true, the evidence will make music. If it is false, it will be just noise, and needs to be defended with volume. Does Biblical Creation make music with the evidence or does it make noise? Does Evolution make music with the evidence or does it make noise? Albert Einstein is credited as saying: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Electromagnetism can be summarized with Maxwell’s four equations. Newtonian physics can be summarized with Newton’s three laws. Much of our scientific knowledge can be explained simply and succinctly. What about Creation or Evolution?
Creation is simple. Genesis 1 is easily understood by a child. It does not require an seminary degree to be able to read and understand Genesis 1, though many in Old Earth circles would like you to believe otherwise. We have the length of the creation week, the order of creation, the method of creation used (the voice of God), and we have how much time has passed since creation. It is short and simple, but not simpler.
Evolution is anything but simple. Countless times we have asked for simple evidence for Evolution and we frequently receive either a lengthy explanation or “you need to do your homework,” or “read a textbook,” or “get an education,” or anything except a simple explanation. As a teacher and a speaker, a common phrase we use to speaking to adults is: “If you cannot explain it clearly to an 8th grade level, you do not know your material well enough.” Now I understand some subjects require some extensive levels of studying, but what exactly is “simple” about Evolution? Every time a Creationist tries to put Evolution in layman’s terms we get the response, “You don’t understand Evolution.” When I see the very few attempts (and I mean few) to explain Evolution, I see very long-winded treatises that do not go into any level of actual depth, and it is mostly “explanations” that read like a fairy tale than any sort of scientific study.
The other thing to notice about Evolution, and this goes for the Old Earth crowd as well, is the dependence upon high level vocabulary. The idea is to sound smarter than your audience so they won’t try to refute you in front of everyone else. In a debate with Kent Hovind, Progressive Creationist Hugh Ross said he’d rather have a debate in front of other PhDs instead of laymen. I believe his intention was that he would rather present his case before those who are more knowledgeable in the scientific (secular) studies so they would not buy Hovind’s arguments. But who was he really referencing? Those who have done their homework, or those who already agreed with him? He certainly would not want many YECs in his audience because many of them are very knowledgeable about both sides. One of Ross’ tactics in particular is a complete lack of clarity. He needs things in the Bible to be unclear, such as the meaning of a “day” or “whole world.” He’s not as bad as many atheists I’ve dealt with in the sense that he actually sticks with the definitions he uses. He just does not give any clarity why he uses the definitions he uses or why they are better. With YEC, our terms are clear, we stick with them, we don’t change them, and you actually can know exactly what our position is. It simply amazes me how many Bible-skeptics read so many YEC articles and still come out as though they never read one word of them, based on what they spew out.
Evolution is a historical model (no, I will not call it a scientific theory) and the evidence depends upon high level studies, muddied waters, gullible students, and high levels of noise to try to drown out the cacophony its “evidences” make. I find more and more that those who lack in sound argumentation tend to make up for it with volume and they are LOUD. Since when did a sound scientific theory need government aid to defend it and silence any critics from having a voice? That alone is strong evidence that the evidence for Evolution is NOT as strong as we are led to believe. The defense for Evolution utilizes some very strange tactics for such a strong theory. The Bible does not need us to defend it. It can defend itself, as it has for 2000+ years.
When one examines all the fields of study including history, archaeology, science, and others and fully studies them, all the data seems to point towards the Bible. Nelson Gluek, one of the top archeologists, said: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Quoted in Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, page 89). He’s not alone in this sentiment. The written and oral world history matches what the Bible says. Every actual scientific study has not refuted a single statement of the Bible. The only field that rises against it are the false philosophies of naturalism, Evolutionism, and other false religions, and they fail to produce a quality challenge. The Bible still remains true. It’s becoming less popular these days, which ironically proves the Bible true because it predicted how the false teachings would come about and the bulk of the world would turn against God. The Bible is true. Its explanations make music and it will outlast every challenge brought against it as it always has. This book will never fail.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment