10 Answers, Part 2

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, June 6, 2019 0 comments

by Steve Risner

Last week, I began a wrap-up to a series of questions posed by a man whose beliefs on creation/evolution are anti-biblical. His questions were intended to show just how foolish “young earth creationism” is (when, in reality, the correct term would be Biblical creationist since we don't care about the age of the earth but about the Bible). This is the second part of that wrap-up. You can find the first part here.

So, the next tired argument from deep time proponents is that of the conspiracy theory. “Have all the scientists and world governments conspired to discredit the Bible and turn people toward atheism?” Of course not. They're just incorrect in their starting assumptions. This is not to say they're wrong about everything. But if your starting premise in incorrect, it's very unlikely the rest of your data and how you interpret it will follow a path to the truth. It's just the way it works. You'll view all the data in light of this false foundational idea and build from there. It's easy to fit the information we have into a false narrative. People do it all the time and there's no reason to believe science is any different because, frankly, we're not talking about a scientific topic. We're talking about history and you can make up any tale you want, throwing some scientific jargon in here and there—like Star Trek is in the future.

What I believe is true in this matter—that of the strawman idea that Biblical creationists believe there's some worldwide conspiracy—is a little different than most talk about. You see, most of those who are professional scientists—they work in scientific disciplines and do work regarding it (although we're not exclusively talking about them but laypersons as well) have been so deeply entrenched in this thought process that they cannot see another way. They are actually blinded to alternative explanations and cannot see the blind bias they have. Blind bias is far more dangerous than intentional bias because you don't even know it's happening or that you're blinded by your bias. They literally cannot see it. It's dangerous and unfortunate. All the while they tell you how bad they feel for you because you've been brainwashed when, in reality, that's very uncommon in the Biblical creationist scene. But it seems very hard to find a follower of the humanist origins myth who's not been indoctrinated into it, rendering them incapable of honestly viewing alternative explanations for the data.

We do know without any doubt that there were very influential men who pushed their ideas about geology simply to discredit the Bible. This is a fact; it's not just my opinion. So, if removing the Bible from geology was the intended purpose in generating deep time, doesn't it follow that if the Bible is actually history and the Flood was actually global, that anything that develops from a foundation without this at its core would be wrong? Is it a conspiracy? I believe some in the past (and many likely now) do hate God and want to do all they can to discredit His Word and belief in Him, so they will seek out ways to fit the data to this desired result. However, there are many who, because they've been taught this foundation of no God of the Bible and no global Flood, start with an error at the outset and, therefore, fit the data to an incorrect narrative. Is it malicious? I think we all understand very few if any actually believe it's evil concerning the majority. It's just an error in their starting point. For some it is intentional, and we could probably fault them for that, but for most it's not. It's just what they've been taught. Does this mean all the Biblical creationists who accept the Bible over man's word think they're smarter than all the deep time proponents—whether old earth creationists, atheists, or theistic evolutionists? Of course not. It means we have the foundational premise correct and allow the data to fall into place in line with that narrative, while others begin with what I believe is a false premise and allow the data to fall into the narrative of deep time and millions of years of death.

Within his next question, Mr. Roberts accidentally refers to his ideas as “old earth geology.” That means there are alternative ways to interpret the data and he's admitted it. Of course, Christians don't oppose geology but the humanistic interpretation of the evidence. Why interpret the data in such a way that it discredits the Bible when you can easily interpret it in such a way that it agrees completely with the Biblical narrative of earth history? This is such a strange idea to me, but I guess the difference is that I've come to trust the Word of God and believe the very clear, very plain, very obvious teachings of the creation and Flood accounts are true.

Old earth creationism and theistic evolutionism have no Biblical basis, period. I've repeatedly asked for someone to show me where it comes from in the Bible and I'm refused an answer. I completely understand if an atheist or other unbeliever scoffs at the Bible and the historical narrative it gives detailing the origins of the universe and life on earth. I cannot understand why someone who claims a faith in the Bible will reject teachings from the Bible that have been the accepted teaching for thousands of years, because the text is easy enough for a child to read and comprehend. There are differences in how some of us read some passages of Scripture—how pastors are chosen, the roles of women in the Church, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, end times stuff, and much more—but rearranging the historical narrative of creation and the Flood and distorting it into something it doesn't actually even come close to resembling is an assault on the Lord, in my opinion.

I have repeatedly asked people who adhere to such blatantly anti-biblical teachings why they try to marry man's humanist origins myth with solid Christian teachings. I'm frequently told that “that's your interpretation” of the text. I find this such a bizarre idea. God told us what He did and fairly clearly when He did it. The Bible is exceptionally clear on it. He told us step by step with details on what happened when. The nature of the creation and the global extent of the Flood are foundational doctrines of Christianity. They contain within their stories the foundation of nearly every major Christian doctrine. Without them, most of our doctrines become opinions or interesting ideas, reducing the Bible to an inconsistent work of men rather than the perfect Word of God. So, if God, who invented communication, had this narrative written down for not only the Hebrews but also for us, what could possibly make someone think it's confusing or doesn't mean exactly what it says?

Man has been studying nature since his creation. It's in us to do so. But man's understanding of the cosmos, the earth, the forces of nature, and life itself is constantly changing—sometimes getting closer to the truth, sometimes getting further from the truth, and sometimes just stepping to one side or the other. But our understanding of the “Book of Nature” as so many call it is not complete and far from perfect. God's communication to us in His Word is perfect and, for the most part, very clear. Our choices, then, are to reject God's plain teachings that have been accepted for thousands of years, or reject man's currently popular explanation based on very incomplete understandings of nature. For me, the choice is so obvious I'm a little troubled the question even needs to be asked. And why would there be literally not even the slightest hint in Scripture that God created any way other than how He claimed to have created? Why would the Bible repeatedly state wherever it's mentioned that the Flood of Noah's day annihilated the entire planet and killed everyone except the 8 that were on the Ark? Why would we not find so much as a hint that it may have been a local flood or some such other thing? God is not a God of confusion.

I'm always baffled by deep time Christians (OEC or TE) that ask questions like this series by Michael Roberts. I've read several different series of questions by old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists that are supposed to be tough for Bible believers. In reality, they're a great tool for exposing how illogical their theology is (which is far more important than their scientific understanding) and fairly often how confused they are about what the Biblical position actually is. It's concerning that so many will reject something that, to me, seems pretty important while they have very little understanding of it.

The Apostle Paul warns us that a falling away will take place. He goes on to describe how this will happen or what will be involved. This makes me doubt that it's referring exclusively to those who claim Christ but reject His written Word. However, I feel it's reasonable to assume that, like there will be many anti-Christs, there may be many different ways for people to fall away. The slippery road to unbelief or universalism is clear when we're talking about rejection of creation and the global Flood. There are many I've interacted with who, over the years, have slowly become much more like the world and much less like a Christian brother or sister. From their statements on their philosophies or their beliefs, it's harder and harder to distinguish between them and the unbelievers I interact with. This, of course, isn't to say all old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists walk this path. Many do and it saddens me to witness it. There are many sincere believers who are wrong on creation and the Flood. It's not a matter of their salvation, but it can lead to problems as the foundation for their faith is shaky.

Friends, don't be fooled. There is no reason to change the intended meaning and well-accepted meaning of the creation account and global Flood narrative found in the Bible. It makes no sense to try to adopt the humanist origins myth into the Bible's accurate recording of how and when God created everything and how and when He annihilated the planet's surface with a global Flood. Let's be consistent.

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.