Tom Might Have Some Issues, Part 2

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, February 7, 2019 7 comments


by Steve Risner

Last week we began by looking at a post from a Christian on the internet who answered a question about his thoughts on the age of the universe and the earth. Tom, the author, has some great resources and some very good points to make over much of his website. But his stance on the age of the universe and the earth and how to read Genesis are way off track in my opinion. I’ll continue my thoughts on that here.

Last week we left off where Tom said that we can observe the age of the universe. Immediately after this, he gets extremely off base by stating that we should consider the scientific method as authoritative as the Bible. As he's described it, the “scientific method” is his own thing and not the actual scientific method, which was developed by a creationist by the way. He claims we should hold its interpretation no differently than how we hold our interpretations of nature. He actually says, referring to the scientific method and the Bible, that “it would be wise to consider the conclusions of one as you would the other.”

This, to me, is a terrible thing to say for a few reasons. One reason is that the Bible is God's Holy Word and has no equal in its authority. I thought that this went without saying for Christians. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. Another of those reasons is that our knowledge of nature, as ever growing as it may be, is far from complete and it never will be complete. New discoveries are made all the time that force us to toss out what we “knew” for sometimes centuries, or at least our old beliefs must be refined because of new information. And when it comes to the universe, what do we actually know? We're a pale blue dot with a great deal of space between us and literally anything else. Everything is so astronomically far (see what I did there?) that we've only visited one place that isn't earth (except, of course, just orbiting) and that's the moon. Going there was a major deal and cost a great deal of money and was very risky. That's about a quarter million miles away. Depending on when you're measuring, Mars and Venus are something like 30 million miles away! The closest star to earth aside from the sun is 25,000,000,000,000 miles away! The closest galaxy to earth is over 66,000 times further than that! We know very little about this vast, incomprehensible universe we call home. We've made a lot of discoveries and a great deal of guess work has gone into it. To suggest we know much about it is laughable, especially when we compare it to what we don't know (which, of course, is not possible to know).

Then he tries to suggest that the theory of the Big Bang was arrived at via the scientific method. No. There was data (incomplete at that) collected. It was interpreted by someone who extrapolated into deep time and made up a story. That's it. He further tries to imply that science has predicted many things that were found to be true later and these things were based on the Big Bang. He gives no examples. He moves, then, to assaulting the Bible's narrative on creation and tries to suggest it's less compatible with science than the Big Bang. This is hogwash. The two are competing ideas on origins and neither is a scientifically valid theory. We can use science as we discuss either, but neither is a scientific study. They are historical. They are beliefs. One is based on the Bible, while the other is based on humanism/atheism. He's chosen the latter as his source for truth in this matter.

He goes so far as to say that Biblical creation (what he terms young earth creation) is scientifically bankrupt. That's always funny to hear people say. It's getting more scientific support all the time, and modern science was invented by creationists who believed what the Bible clearly states about creation. Furthermore, if your authority on the matter is “science” rather than God and His message to us, your faith is scientism and not Christianity. There are a great many things that cannot be known from science. What science “knows” now will likely be scoffed at in years to come all the while the Bible will stand alone as authoritative. We're just waiting for science to catch up.

It saddens me to see someone with such intellect and such a platform be duped by the enemy. Fortunately, it seems like he focuses very little on this in his ministry. But the Bible is exquisitely clear: God could have created however He wanted. He could have created over eons of time or instantly. However, He chose to do it in 6 days, and He explained what happened on each of those days very clearly. I'm at a loss to understand why people want to marry the secular humanist's origins myth with Christianity. There is no need for this, and it is an assault on the Word of God.

God could have done it any way He wanted, but He told us exactly how He did it and left very obvious clues in His Word as to when He did it. Old earth creationists take their belief in deep time and try to force it into the Scriptures, where Biblical creationists allow the Bible to reveal the truth of the creation event. There is no doubt from the Bible that God created everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago. This was followed about 1500 years later by a global catastrophe that killed all land-dwelling animals and all people except what was on the Ark. A huge number of marine creatures died as well. One hundred or so years later, God confused the languages of man at the Tower of Babel. The Table of Nations outlined in Genesis 10 gives us the origins of all people groups. It's amazing to look at the evidence for this from all around the world. All of these events are chronicled for us. If any of them are true, deep time is false, or at the very least has a harder time.

It's simple really. Rather than start with an idea that is not founded on Scripture and then cramming it into the text, we should look at the Bible and see where it leads us. I hope Tom decides to look into this further and trust God and His Word rather than man and his attempts to reject his Creator.

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.

7 comments:

ashleyhr said...

'modern science was invented by creationists'. I think that's your favourite LIE. Like Josef Goebbels you keep repeating the lie.

ashleyhr said...

'duped by the enemy'. No - convinced by the evidence.

Steve Risner said...

Ashley,
Thanks for reading. I would first like to start by making sure you know that a few of your comments were removed from the thread because they were just intolerant name calling and nonsense like that. It's not good for anyone and certainly doesn't promote decent discussion. If you'd like to resubmit those comments minus the name calling, I'd be happy to post them, although I don't believe there was any actual content aside from the personal attacks.

Next: Modern science was invented by creationists and I've explained to you why. I guess I'll have to go over it AGAIN point by point:
Francis Bacon developed the scientific method which is still used today. He was a Biblical creationist.
Steno developed modern geology and his principles are still used in geology today. He was a Biblical creationist.
Ben Franklin developed oceanography as did Matthew Maury. They were creationists.
Carl Linnae is the father of modern biology (you probably thought Darwin was) and he was a Biblical creationist as well.
Microbiology was developed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, a creationist.
Andreas Vesalius is considered the father of the modern study of human anatomy. He was a creationist.
William Harvey, who first accurately described how the circulatory system works, was a follower of Christ as well. He was also instrumental in the creation of the modern scientific method with Bacon, especially in medicine. He was a Christian and creationist.
Gregor Mendol is credited with great advancements in genetics and modern day botany. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that spontaneous generation is an old wives’ tale. Keep in mind abiogenesis is nothing more than spontaneous generation with a modern day twist. These two were creationists.
The Johnsonian telescope was invented by Johnson, a creationist.
Isaac Newton wrote more on theology than on science, although he's considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time and likely had an IQ greater than Einstein's. He was a Biblical creationist.
Faraday was a creationist. Pioneered much in electricity.
Kepler was a creationist. He developed the laws of planetary motion.
Thomas was a creationist. In his search to glorify God, he discovered the electron.
Maxwell was a creationist. He was the first to accurately describe what electromagnetic radiation is.
We could also note Joseph Lister who was a creationist and developed antiseptic.
Robert Boyle was a pioneering chemist and physicist. He was a Christian.
Georges Cuvier was the "founding father of paleontology. He was a creationist.
Lord Rayleigh did a great deal in the way of physics.
Charles Babbage originated the idea of the digital computer. He was a creationist.
John Ambrose Fleming is the father of modern electronics. He was a creationist.
Henri Fabre invented seaplanes.
Lord Kelvin did a great deal of work on the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermo, doing so as a creationist. He has a temperature scale named after him.
George Stokes developed fluid dynamics.
Leonardo Da Vinci, known as a universal genius, has innumerable contributions to science and technology. I'm pretty sure we'd all agree he was a creationist.
Pascal made major contributions to physics, especially in regards to fluids and to the idea of the vacuum. He was a creationist.
Rudolph Virchow was the father of modern pathology and was a creationist.
Louis Agassiz made sizable contributions to zoology (majoring in ichthyology) and geology.
There are obviously many others.
My point stands and you probably should apologize for name calling. It's not helpful for the discussion at all.


This in no way suggests ONLY Biblical creationists have contributed to science and that has never been ANYONE's contention. You would do well to start arguing against things I say rather than your made up versions of what you want me to say.

Steve Risner said...

I say he was duped by the enemy because he accepted the nonsensical and self refuting ideas that are offered by the humanist origins myth. The evidence can't convince anyone of anything unless it's interpreted to do so. The evidence has brought many atheists to a belief in Biblical creationism. How does that work if the evidence is only in favor of your humanist origins myth? As an unbeliever, you have to disregard much of your own philosophy and worldview in order to accept your philosophy and worldview. It's interesting to watch, actually.

I gave the author I was responding to (not attacking on any level at all) a great deal of credit and encouraged readers to review much of his website. You would do well if you considered that before you try to post your silly and childish name calling.

ashleyhr said...

''The evidence has brought many atheists to a belief in Biblical creationism.'' I suspect going directly from one to the other (rather than simply converting to Christianity first) is rare. Though of course falsehoods from YECs that are difficult to fact-check probably help over in America. Such as their claims that evolution is 'impossible'.

When people post falsehoods online to mislead and to denigrate others (including pro-science Christians) then name-calling of them is perfectly justified. Sorry if you find it upsetting.

You claimed that modern science was invented by creationists. That is untrue. It was invented by a lot of disparate people. So I stated that your words were a lie. I did NOT suggest that you suggested that ONLY Biblical creationists have contributed to science (which also would be patently false).

I also alerted the author Tom to your posts (did you inform him of them yourself).

'' Ashley:
Thank you for writing. Yes, I have seen the article.
I hope all is well with you.
Tom Terry''

Steve Risner said...

Again, of course I informed him. He didn't respond to me. I gave him an email weeks prior to the first one coming out and a link to the first one after it did come out. I'm interested in good dialogue, not attacks or criticism behind closed doors. That's cowardly. Tom seems like a really good guy and is a warrior for Christ. I appreciate that about him. I can't see how someone disagreeing with him is such a terrible thing. We used to live in a place where differences of opinion were okay and even, sometimes, said to create strength. Now if you disagree, you're a bigot or some sort of hateful jerk. I try to be better than that--it's such a petite thing and so small minded.

"I suspect going directly from one to the other (rather than simply converting to Christianity first) is rare."--maybe. But this would tend to make the undeniable nature of the overwhelming evidence for the Bible seem stronger, wouldn't it?

"When people post falsehoods online to mislead and to denigrate others (including pro-science Christians) then name-calling of them is perfectly justified."--what if the "falsehoods" are a difference of opinion? Is someone lying if they believe what they're telling you is true? You seem to be under the impression that you can know someone's intentions. I'm sorry you think that's okay, but it's rather arrogant and presumptuous. I'm also sorry you feel name calling is okay if you don't like what the other person believes. That's truly unfortunate and probably means you'll never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone or ever learn anything for that matter--at least from someone who sees the world differently than you do. Yet I am the intolerant bigot. That's weird.

"You claimed that modern science was invented by creationists. That is untrue."--I told exactly why it is true. If you would like to counter my statements, please do. I'm excited to see what you have to say. However, if your argument is "that's not true" you can give it a rest. You have nothing. I stand by my statements and even gave you a detailed explanation which you didn't even try to respond to.

Good night.

ashleyhr said...

When people become Christians there can be much pressure exerted on them to 'think the right things' - and that often includes questioning the scientific consensus especially since many scientists aren't religious. Young Christians like hearing claims that 'science supports the Bible' - even though (apart from possibly hinting at a 'designed universe that can support life') it does no such thing.

Young earth creationists are pro-active in disseminating claims that are not remotely supported by the international scientific consensus. And they seldom if ever consider that they could be wrong in their claims - because the Bible is 'infallible' and must be defended as 'literal history' and as something that trumps naturalistic science. I challenge that mindset.

I have challenged, on this website, your 'modern science was invented by creationists' false claim before. I do not exactly where or when - and there appears to be no search facility on this blog page. But I am sure I mentioned the role of eg Chinese and Muslim civilisations in pioneering some early scientific knowledge.

PS I did search my email sent box where I saved some past comments that I sent to your blog page. On 11 January this year I wrote: ''And science was NOT invented by 'creationists' (your sort of bigoted dishonest young earther denialist creationists who write false sentences like those above). It was often practised by believing Christians.''And on 25 January this year I wrote: ''And it is NOT a fact that science was invented by people who believe what today's 'young earth' creationists insist is true.
"You say, "No, sir!" and act like you've countered or corrected my statements."That is a grotesque caricature of my position on how scientific study began, as I have previously stated it to you (including, I believe, mentioning Muslims and the Chinese and their role in pioneering scientific studies centuries ago). Either you have a poor memory - or you are a wilful liar. I suspect the latter.''

I have saved this text.