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.
14 comments:
'modern science was invented by creationists'. I think that's your favourite LIE. Like Josef Goebbels you keep repeating the lie.
'duped by the enemy'. No - convinced by the evidence.
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.
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.
''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''
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.
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.
Hi Ashley,
You've left a great comment here...I plan to respond to each point (unless it has not merit for discussion).
"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."=======Christians don't pressure others to "think the right thoughts." Controlling thinking is a terrible thing to do. Many groups (atheists included) tell people what to think. Christians (true Christians I guess I'll have to say as there are bad examples of anything if it involves people) try to teach people how to think. In other words, teaching critical thinking skills and giving a foundation for knowledge based on the Bible is essential not only for Christian living, but for living a decent life in general. The world over has borrowed from the Christian worldview, often times with the intent to mock it. If an atheist claims anyone is wrong or that any action is bad, he's exposing the horrid inconsistencies of his own worldview. There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil, or even value in the atheist worldview. These things are made up nonsense for the atheist since his faith tells him that everything is just a collection of chemistry. Life is an accident and his mind/sole is just an evolved clump of dirt vomited on by cosmic radiation or some other such hopeless drivel. Christians don't teach against science. That's crazy. We know that modern science was founded for the most part by Biblical creationists. I've outlined that for you in the past and wrote a blog post about it called "Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron."
Your claim that science doesn't back up the Bible is unfounded and exceptionally so. The Bible makes many claims that have been substantiated. Some of these claims are scientific in nature. Others are historical. Still others are prophetic and, to us, are now historical. The truths found in the Word of God change lives, Ashley. They are powerful beyond measure. They've freed addicts from their addictions. They've freed the angry and bitter from their emotions. They've mended relationships. They've severed some, too, I imagine. The truths of God's Word have humbled the proud and changed the course of human history. What would the world look like without the influence of Christ? You'd speak German right now. Yes, I'm referring to WWII. But that's just a small thing. The planet from all four corners would be dark and bleak. It would be a far cry from what it is today. How many educational centers were founded under the flag of Christianity? How many hospitals have been built under the Christian faith? How many charities that feed the hungry, counsel the weary, clothe the naked, and heal the sick are there that have been founded with Christ as its head? All this and much more confirms for anyone honest enough to accept it that the Bible is true. Science is a small part of it--the least impressive and least important in my estimation, although I love science. Science does, in fact, confirm a great deal of what the Bible states.
Ashley further stated:
"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. "========The "international scientific consensus" is something I've not heard of. What's that? To my knowledge, many of the greatest discoveries in history went against the consensus. Consensus science is junk science and any scientist worth his weight in spit understands that. I've written extensively on that topic. I'm sure if you search "consensus" in the search bar, some of that will come up. Who thinks that because a lot of people think something is true that this somehow makes something true? If that was the case, since more people claim to be Christians in the world than anything else, I guess that means Christianity is true. Or are you going to back down from your "international scientific consensus" stuff? Consensus is unimpressive and many great thinkers of the years have said as much.
I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong, sir. But you'll be hard pressed to find something wrong in the Bible. If you think you've found something you know is wrong within its pages, you've either grossly misunderstood it or completely misinterpreted whatever it is you've found in the world. I suspect, like most, that the latter is true. OEC and TE (and all secular persons) have misinterpreted nature (which is easy to do to be fair) and want to make the Bible either wrong (which is funny to watch sometimes) or they want to make it say something it clearly has no intention of doing (which is sad sometimes).
Of course the Bible teaches a "literal" (not sure why you used quotes there) history. What else would it be? The people and places in the Bible are obviously real. Our discoveries of archaeology and historians confirm this all the time (sometimes unknowingly). There are areas that conflict, sure. But we're just waiting for the unbelievers to catch up for those digging to find the info. It happens all the time.
And of course what the Bible clearly states trumps "naturalistic science" (what other kind is there?). We have to rewrite what nature reveals all the time. One idea is perpetuated for years or even centuries before it's discovered that it's incorrect--either majorly or it needs some tweaking. A clear communication vs a fallen man's biased interpretation of a cursed creation? You decide which is more likely to be interpreted accurately.
Ashley further stated:
"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."========yes. You indeed did mention Muslims and the Chinese. That was all you did--mention them. And you failed at that time (and still apparently after I've explained it in detail several times and even asked you to read my blog post called "Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron" to understand even what my point is. You can search in the search bar for lots of stuff but it has to be in the blog post itself, I think. Not in the comments.
But if by "challenged" you mean you disagreed and offered no actual counter argument, I can't help you as that is not a challenge. You mentioned Muslims and the Chinese. That's not really refuting any claims I've made or countering the very long explanations I've given you in the past. Point by point would be nice. Take each major branch of science and tell me who you think founded it and/or developed it and if the overwhelming majority aren't Biblical creationists, then we'll have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just doing exactly what your next paragraph is saying--"no, sir!" and then you slam your hand on the table and act like you've made a point. That's not how it works. Come back with a point. come back with a counterpoint even--that would be amazing!
Ashley
I do appreciate the name calling. It makes me smile and shake my head (although I'm not supposed to clear comments to be posted that contain such things) with a little chuckle. Bigoted dishonest young earther denialist creationist is a great new one! Nice work. Six words in one name. Impressive.
Ashley:
I just had an opportunity to read this article for the first time, and then read all of the comments to date.
Steve did a marvelous job of responding very graciously to your comments, and not only did he say them better than I probably would, but he sure had a lot more grace for you than I would.
There are a couple points which he either didn’t make which I would like to add too, or he did make and I have something to add. I hope you come back to read them, and the several recent ones he posted.
//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.// This is typical self-justification, which is always a shallow, low road to take. It does seem to be one of the few ‘weapons’ in the atheist’s arsenal, which comes out after they have exhausted their feeble resources (of actually valid factual points) and have been brought up short on their inappropriate use of ad hominem and insults.
I recommend you work at breaking out of that mold, and thinking for yourself, and do a little research on interpersonal relationships, both online and off. You will see it has no merit, and never has any benefit (except for the mud-slinger thinking ‘wow, I really told HIM off!’). That’s just an ego thing.
Just a little point too on ‘thinking for yourself’. This ‘origins’ conversation is massively censored, be it he views of either creationism or ID. Everyone is being told what to think, and not given the opportunity to actually hear both interpretations of the evidence, and make their own decisions.
Funny how you can still think it’s even a ‘thing’ with Christianity, and seem to think it’s wrong, but it’s perfectly fine for the ‘consensus’ to be rammed down everyone’s throats, whether they like it or not. And of course, for those who object to the ‘consensus’, they have to deal with the realities of ad hominems, mockery, loss of funding, career opportunities and publishing venues, which are very real risks. I have a long list of those people whose lives have been negatively affected by their dissent.
BTW, appealing to Consensus is called The Bandwagon Fallacy.
//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 SMH to think that you wrote that, AFTER you read Steve’s excellent detailed response. I actually have my own list, which I will be comparing that list to, as I suspect I am missing a number. It’s also possible Steve is missing some from his list. He said as much. There may be a few on mine.
//I did NOT suggest that you suggested that ONLY Biblical creationists have contributed to science (which also would be patently false).// Well, you most certainly IMPLIED it, otherwise, what is your point?
Everything Steve said about the majority of the Founders of Science is true, not a lie at all, and he backed it up with facts. Maybe your issue was that he didn’t say ‘We know that modern science was founded for the most part by Biblical creationists.’ until later in the recent comments. I will grant that phrase ‘for the most part’ was missing in his original comment in the blog post, which I suppose he has learned to henceforth include, so that he can minimize baseless criticisms such as you have leveled.
What is so ironic is that he covered his butt by clarifying, and explaining that he did not mean to say ‘that ONLY Biblical creationists have contributed to science’, and yet you criticize THAT too, and flip-flop on your stance by saying that //also would be patently false//. Which is it? If you think it is patently false, what is your point? Why did you even take issue with his original comment?
The facts are that while there were some atheists or non-monotheistic people (you mentioned Chinese) involved in some early aspects of ‘philosophy’ (as science was originally called), their contributions were relatively small by comparison, because their world view gave them no cause to expect an ordered, designed universe, with discoverable laws. Muslims don’t count, because they are monotheistic, and trace their roots back to Abraham, as do Jews. So both are by definition (in the official tenets of their beliefs) ‘creationists’. While on the topic of monotheists and creationists, check out how many are Jews, and how many are Christians. It’s a huge percentage!
There are also a few Old Earth ‘Creationists’ in the list of the founding fathers of science, but again, there are only a few. So, you don’t have a point. All you have is bluster, because you don’t like it.
You know, that bluster would amazingly dissipate if you were to allow yourself to be honest, and to consider the potential value in what people like Steve are saying. I guarantee, once you have had a personal encounter with the Creator of the universe, you will never be the same again, and you would be a fool to walk away from Him.
YOU are the one who has bought into a huge lie, and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Ask yourself: ‘why am I so tied up in knots about this? Why should I even care, if God is imaginary?’ I’ll tell you why: you don’t even recognize the voice of the liar who wants to keep everyone away from a relationship with that Creator.
//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.//
Believe it or not, as false as that statement is (and Steve answered that masterfully), I see a wonderful ray of hope there. At least it appears you may be willing to acknowledge that you can see some ‘hinting’ of design. That is uncommon.
Keep it up, and nurture that. The liar you’ve been listening to doesn’t like that openness, but I’ll give you a little hint: my Dad’s bigger than your dad, and He’s already ‘whupped’ him. He’s also got his arms open wide to welcome you into His family when you are ready. Just don’t wait too long. The clock is ticking, and you’re missing a great life every moment you dig in your heels!
Greg,
I greatly (and humbly) appreciate your encouraging comments and contributions to the conversation. Not enough Biblical creationists want to get in on the discussion. Your points are spot and and very well spoken. Thanks!
Keep up the excellent work, my friend.
Post a Comment