Blog

by Steve Risner

We’re in the fifth and final week on this topic of “Can you be a Christian and accept evolution?” which was a question posed by an article I found on sciencenetwork.uk. You can find that article here. You can also find the first four of my blog posts on this here, here, here, and here. Thanks for reading. Let’s jump right into it.

“Psalm 19 compels us to listen carefully to both science and the Bible on this issue.” No, it doesn’t. They’re giving equal footing to nature as they do the Bible. Again, this is very similar to paganism—the worship of nature. I suggest trusting the Lord and His clear teachings on this. Is God so inept He couldn’t communicate well enough to get the message across to us? He required atheists or, at the very least unbelievers or those who reject Scripture, to point out the truth to us? I find that hard to believe.

“…is there a way to take both Scripture and science seriously and accept a mainstream view of evolutionary theory?” Not even close. The author says, “Well, yes!” like they’re excited to be a heretic. But the truth is if you don’t have reading comprehension issues, there is no way to reconcile universal common descent and the creation narrative in Genesis. It’s simply not possible. Suggesting you can reconcile these tells me you’re either not very bright, don’t understand what either are telling us, don’t care and just want to be able to walk both sides, or some combination of these. Yes, it seems quite evident that God made the biosphere capable of limited adaptation. That seems like something a loving God would do. It also seems like we can observe this happening in nature. But don’t be confused; this is not at all related to abiogenesis and universal common descent. Before you throw your hands up and say, “Abiogenesis isn’t part of evolution,” let’s be honest. First, this discussion is about far more than universal common descent. It involves the totality of the humanist origins myth from the moment of the Big Bang up until the emergence of man on the scene and all that allegedly evolved between the two. Secondly, abiogenesis is intimately linked to Darwinism and is taught alongside Darwinism in every textbook we have available to us on the topic.

“I suspect that after another century or so of good science and good Biblical scholarship we’ll be able to draw some firmer conclusions.” Again, the “truth” found in what this person is calling science is far from complete and will be changed many times over in the next 100 years. The Bible is the unchanging Word of God. This person wants to skew the meaning of Scripture to fit into some humanistic interpretation of nature that is misapplied to history. Atheism requires deep time; Creationism does not at all. There is no reason to believe in deep time unless you first have bought the humanist origins myth as true before looking at the evidence – then you HAVE to believe in deep time. But, again, the topic of origins cannot be a scientific one. The Bible is truth; I believe this, and I’m biased this way. Everyone is biased in some way, though many will deny it. Are you honest enough to admit it? But future scholarship of the Bible will only work to further the decay of the Church from the Truth found in Scripture. Many of the scholars who want to tell us about the Bible these days are secularists. They have no regard or love for the Bible and only look at it as a book of myths and legends with the occasional nugget of historical truth. Nothing supernatural. Nothing applicable to the human condition. Let the Word of God say what it says. Accept it or reject it, but don’t reject it and act like you’re maintaining some high regard for Scripture or the Lord who inspired it.

“But the very existence of these men and women – scholars committed to the authority of Scripture who also accept evolution – proves that it is indeed possible to be a faithful Christian and agree with the scientific consensus on this issue.” Not at all, but even if it did; so what? And, again, many if not most of these scholars are not believers. They are not “committed to the authority of Scripture.” Even while Paul was doing his missionary work, there were those who poisoned the Gospel or even slightly changed it, making it something other than what it was. The author is trusting now in the authority of men (although I’ve not heard of most of these people in their list) and position rather than in the written Word of God. There are some Christians who will say that abortion is okay—it’s a woman’s choice. Does the existence of these people mean this idea is good? Some Christians will say that the man is the dominating force in his home and if he sees fit to beat his wife and kids, that’s his right. Does the existence of these people mean this is right? Some Christians think there are other ways to heaven other than Jesus Christ. Jesus said He is the only way—that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Does the existence of these people mean it’s okay to seek God elsewhere? Some people, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, think their faith and the faith described in the Bible are harmonious. Does that mean it’s true since they exist? I hope you’re seeing how utterly preposterous this is. The existence of heretics (not saying all these folks are heretics mind you) does not mean heresy is respectable and equal to the Truth.

“Paul’s aware of the complexity involved in interpreting God’s truth rightly, and he knows Christians will come to different conclusions on things.” These complexities didn’t involve creation, did they? He seemed pretty unwavering on that as did Peter and John. Jesus seemed convinced the Word of God was true on the matter of creation, too. Again, the way theistic evolutionists argue, they suggest we can’t know anything from Scripture. That’s simply not true, though it is a logical conclusion of their beliefs. It’s simply wrong.

“You don’t have to choose between two things that you hold dear.” This is such a strange statement to me. Who holds evolution or, more specifically universal common descent, dearly? The fact that the Lord Almighty built life with the ability to have limited adaptive powers is awesome. But I don’t see how someone would hold common ancestry dearly. Are we putting way too much emotion into something that is nothing more than man’s attempt to explain nature and life without God? Jesus tells us we can’t serve two masters. Our hearts can’t handle it. The two masters in this case would be Christ and nature. It just doesn’t work to worship the creation and the Creator.

“Paul’s emphasis in these matters is that we are free in Christ.” What a terrible misapplication of this thought. We are free from the power of sin. We are free in Christ to do what we ought to do. Prior to that moment of salvation, we were not capable of doing the good we ought to do. With Christ in us, we can. Freedom in Christ doesn’t mean we can believe anything we want. It doesn’t mean we can toss out any of the Holy Scriptures we don’t like. It doesn’t mean anything like what this person is suggesting it means.

“In Christ you’re free to hold to young earth creation and you’re free to embrace evolution. You’re free to sit somewhere in the middle, and you’re free to be undecided.” Just because I feel it’s worth stressing again: we are not “free in Christ” to believe anything we think sounds okay. In fact, we know the path is narrow. Compromise is not something the Lord appreciates in us. He tells us in Revelation He’d rather we were hot or cold, not lukewarm. We are not “free in Christ” to toss out entire sections of Scripture or foundational doctrines merely because a man or woman who was likely an unbeliever told us what they thought about origins that differed from the Bible. Again, do not be confused: origins is not science. You cannot observe one-time past events. You cannot make predictions about one-time past events. You cannot experiment on one-time past events. This is especially true if those events are surrounded by conditions we are in the dark about.

“…heeding Paul’s command to ‘accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you.’” This is what creationists tend to do. We do accept brothers and sisters who may be led astray concerning creation and the authority of Scripture. Some are fairly radical about it, but in general, we can accept them while simultaneously rejecting their bad theology. We have more similarities, in most cases, than differences and if we believe that Christ is the Son of God, that He lived a sinless life on earth and was crucified for our sins, only to rise again on the 3rd day and ascend into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father, we are brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense. But I would advise believers who have rejected what the Bible tells us about creation and the Flood to get a good footing because the slope is rather slick. I’ve witnessed too many who follow this path and eventually reject the Lord altogether.

The author then, in their notations, explains that St. Augustine of Hippo is on their side here. This is simply not true. While St. Augustine had a complex view of Genesis that evolved over time, he held to a literal interpretation. This author also says Augustine did not conform to a 24-hour day time frame for the days of creation while he did maintain a historical interpretation of the book of Genesis. This is true. Augustine believed it was possible the Lord used the word “day” in the Genesis account of creation when, in fact, He created on each of those days in moments rather than 24 hours. In reality, we have no reason to believe God required 24 hours each day to complete His work. But each day is marked by something that He did unique to that day, in a specific order and consecutively. While evolutionists like to use him by misapplying his statements, Augustine was very much a Biblical creationist. He had some questions concerning exactly what happened on each of the days of creation and how long each day took (was it 24 hours or was it only seconds or minutes?) but he held firmly to the historicity of the narrative.

I pray this series of posts has helped you, the reader, understand some of the ins and outs of this debate. Evolution is a thing that happens. But evolution is also a competing story for how God created everything there is. It depends on what you mean by “evolution” when you use the term. It can describe living things or the cosmos or any number of other things when we talk about it in this debate. God gave His creation the ability to adapt to different environments within a limited degree. He’s awesome that way. Praise Him for His mighty acts! He is worthy of all our praise!

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.

by Steve Risner

This is week four on this topic of “Can you be a Christian and accept evolution?” I found an article with that says, “Yes” to this question, and I took issue with much of what they had to say. Before reading this post, I would recommend making sure you’ve read my other posts here, here, and here. This post will make more sense then. Let’s jump into it.

“We’re not free to disregard the Bible because it feels outdated.” So, why are you doing this? The Bible is timeless in its principles. And when it comes to history, how could anyone argue that changes? History happened. It was recorded. No amount of time passing can change what happened.

“We’re not free… to disregard science because its conclusions are inconvenient for our theology.” As many evolutionists are, the author of this article is confused. They think “science” is what we’re talking about when it’s nothing more than philosophy or religion. Scientific “conclusions” like gravity, pH, electricity, and so on are things you can bank on by and large. But stories about chemicals turning into life and that simple life form diversifying into all sorts of highly complex, very specialized organisms is a very naïve belief system. Feel free to discard any other religion’s take on origins if it conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture. In short, if you read the Bible and you look at nature and they don’t seem to agree, you’re very likely misinterpreting nature. One of these revelations is a written communication from God Almighty. The other is essentially art, which can be open to a million different interpretations, and none may be correct or complete. When in doubt, side with the Lord and His Word.

“Psalm 19 urges us to take both science and Scripture seriously.” It actually does not do this at all, but theistic evolutionists want it to say this, so they feel justified in rejecting Scripture. Placing the two on equal standing is not a good idea at all. In fact, it’s a terrible idea and is akin to paganism. God gave us His Word for a reason. Nature, while able to point us to our Creator, does not speak divine truth to us. In fact, the nature we’re seeing now is cursed. The Fall was accompanied by a curse that God placed not just on mankind but on all of creation. In fact, Paul tells the Romans (and us) that “creation has been groaning” since the Fall. The creation is essentially ill. The story it may be telling us now is nothing like the story it would have told us in Eden before Adam and Eve disobeyed God for the first time, introducing sin into the world. So, taking fallen man’s skewed interpretation of a cursed creation over the perfect Word of God is insane, in my opinion. What rational person would suggest we can understand more or even as much about God from nature as we can from the book He gave us?

“At the same time, we’ve got to be realistic and humble about how good we are as fallen and limited people at interpreting God’s truth.” This is partially true. We don’t know everything from the Word of God. But we can read His thoughts in His message to us, and what He clearly tells us about creation is undeniable. Either believe what it says or reject the Word. It’s up to you and where you put your final authority. I hate to repeat myself so much, but the truth here is still the same. We are fallen, and they get that right in this article. But we also have the Word of God, which is what He wanted us to know, and He has preserved it for us. Trust Him rather than sinful man’s take on origins. Man has been at war with God for nearly 6000 years. Do you think you can trust him more so than the Creator of all that is? And, again, what is easier to believe: that we grossly misinterpreted the clear teachings of God from His Word which He left for us, or that we misunderstood something we saw in nature, or we drew the wrong conclusion about something we saw in nature or we went a little too far in that interpretation—going beyond what we actually know to be true?

“When it comes to science, we can only ever work with a partial data set, and it’s not like we can do repeatable experiments where we re-run the last 4 billion years to confirm our hypothesis.” This is why origins is NOT a scientific topic of any kind. It’s impossible, and people will assault the integrity of the tool that is science by trying to force it to be something it is not and cannot be. Universal common descent is not repeatable. It’s not observable. It’s not able to be experimented on. It’s not able to have predictive power since it’s historical (you can’t predict something that will happen in the past). They’ve demolished their entire argument here by being truthful about why universal common descent is not science. It is rare to find a theistic evolutionist so honest about this, and it’s refreshing. I’ve literally conversed with hundreds over the years. Many are hostile toward the Bible and those who believe what it says. I’m thankful this person is genuine here.

“When it comes to Scripture, we’re all too prone to bringing our own presuppositions and cultural baggage to God’s word and reading into it what we want to read.” Fortunately, as a Biblical creationist, I’ve not done this to the best of my knowledge. This is precisely what others (old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists) do all the time. You need not twist Scripture with your own cultural or whatever biases to understand the creation narrative and the rest of the history found in Genesis. The book literally spans 1/3 of all of history. It’s all very important for understanding our condition and the solution that the Lord has given to us. There is no way to justify abandoning what everyone in the Bible and for almost 2000 years after Christ understood about creation. None. The cultural differences do not change what the clear teachings of ALL of the Scriptures are concerning creation (a short and incomplete list can be found here). And the culture changed over time from Adam and Eve to Noah to Jacob and his family to Moses and then David up to the time of Christ. Different languages are represented in the Bible. Different time periods. Even different locations. What culture would we be speaking about if that dictates how we understand the Word of God? If anything, the lens of our culture would force us to toss out much of Genesis and other creation passages. Thankfully, we don’t have to be blinded by our cultural biases, and we can accept God’s Word for what it says. I’ve found no reason not to after over 30 years of looking.

“Though God has genuinely made truth accessible to us via both means, we could be (and probably are) making mistakes in how we read either science, Scripture or both (and we won’t necessarily know which).” If you think it’s possible to misunderstand Genesis, then you literally cannot accept or know anything found in Scripture. None of it is able to be grasped if the opening chapters are in question. A 7-year-old can read or hear Genesis and understand the narrative. It’s very simple. The creation account, the Fall, the curse, the Flood, the dispersion, the covenant – it’s all important, all right there, and all easy to understand. Do we have everything right from Scripture? Of course not. But the odds of us having a perfect understanding of nature are far worse than us understanding God’s written communication to us. Especially if what we are trying to force nature to say to us is 100% opposed to what the Bible tells us. When there’s a conflict, trust His Word over anything else.

Again, time has run out and we are out of space for this week’s post. I hope this has opened your eyes to some of the issues with forcing the idea of universal common descent (often referred to as simply “evolution”) into the Judeo-Christian teachings on creation. Take care and come back next week as we wrap up this series.

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.

by Steve Risner

We are three posts deep into a reaction to an article I found at sciencenetwork.uk called “Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” The other two posts in this series are here and here. You may want to catch up with those before continuing with this one if you haven’t read them already.

Much of what we have discussed so far has revolved around the idea that “evolution” has a variety of meanings and some are even scientific while others are not. Let’s move on today and see what this author thinks.

“So in theory God could certainly use evolution as a means of creation.” In theory, yes. In reality, based on the clear teachings of Scripture, He did no such thing at all, period. Universal common descent is void of evidence from Scripture or the natural world and, frankly, makes no sense and defies experience and the laws of nature and probability. He could have, but this is nothing like “He did.”

“…what do we do if it feels like scientific evidence is pointing us in the direction of one mechanism for creation, but Scripture points us in another?” Trust God first. Where you put your final or ultimate authority is where you’ll land. If you think man is smarter than God, you’ll trust man’s currently popular version of the humanist origins myth which will likely change in a few years. Or if the Bible is your source of ultimate Truth, you’ll allow Him the privilege of being more learned than you and you’ll accept what He tells you. “Science” is in conflict with the Bible when that science is a religious notion built on piles and piles of assumptions and extrapolations. True science testifies to the beauty of God’s creative works and His marvelous deeds. Origins cannot be a scientific study; it just cannot. You can’t observe, test, or repeat one-time past events. This is not difficult to understand at all; this is history. One’s philosophy and/or worldview will dictate what story of origins a person believes, but none of them are scientific. So science cannot point us in a direction that is contrary to Scripture when it comes to origins. Science has very little to say about it.

The author of this article then focuses on Psalm 19, a psalm of David. Regarding that psalm he says:

“…the big point he [David] wants to make about the heavens is that they communicate something about God.” Yes. They proclaim His awesome power and greatness. His magnificence is beyond comprehension. They don’t utter nonsense about the Big Bang or universal common descent or anything like that at all.

“Day and night, as we look up at the sky it is telling us something about the God who made it. The created world is like a letter from God to us saying ‘Look! I’m here! See what I’m like!’” This is why the unbeliever is without excuse. But it’s also a great reason not to hold hands with those unbelievers, trashing the Word of God and attacking Christians for their faith in Him and the truth of His Word. Don’t go beyond what is written. The Bible doesn’t tell us that nature will tell us the Gospel; it simply tells us that we have a Creator we are accountable to.

“It makes sense, then, for David’s mind to wander from one means of God’s self-communication to another.” Suggesting the “book of nature” is nearly as easy to understand or as clear a communication as the written Word of God is laughable and preposterous in my opinion. What we understand about nature is constantly revised. What we “knew” 10 years ago is hogwash today. What we “know” today will be tossed out in a few years. But the Word of God stands firm and is unchanging. He specifically tells us how He created, and less directly He tells us when He did that. There is no reason from Scripture—none at all—to hold a different view other than the one presented in the Bible. The only reason anyone does is because secularists and humanists have told their own tale of origins, and some Christians or churches have entertained it as possible even though the Bible is completely at odds with this origins myth. Nature does not tell us about the Gospel. It does not tell us any of God’s moral laws. It simply demands that we acknowledge our Creator and give Him the awe and respect He is worthy of as the Creator of everything.

“As nature illuminates for us something of what God is like, so does God’s written word, the Bible.” Again, acting like one is equal to the other is not only absurd, but it’s possibly a little blasphemous. Maybe that’s a little extreme, but I’d rather be accused by God of being zealous for His Word than being wishy-washy with it, allowing humanism to decide for me what the Bible means. I will correct this statement, however; nature does not tell us what God is like. Not at all. Nature tells us there is a God and that He’s awesome, that’s it.

“And Scripture goes further than creation can: it gives words to that which the heavens cannot articulate. The Bible spells out in detail God’s salvation plan for creation through Jesus, and gives us all that we need to know that salvation for ourselves.” Yes, I agree.

“So God uses both nature and Scripture to communicate with us about who he is.” Does nature really tell us truths about the Creator, or does it just make it clear to us that there is a Creator God? If it does speak truths about God, what are they? Are these the same truths as found in Scripture? If not, why not? If they are found in Scripture, why do we need to look to nature for them?

“The truth that we find in the pages of the Bible is God’s truth.” Why do you assault the Word of God by suggesting the clear teachings of Scripture are not true? That some other version of creation is more accurate and we needed light shed on this true version of our origins by atheists and other God-hating people?

“And the truth that we find by the study of the natural world using science is also God’s truth.” You cannot possibly argue that science discovers truth in many respects to nature. What we “know” now will be laughed at in the future as more knowledge is gained, much like what we “knew” 100 years ago is mocked today. That’s “God’s truth” in your mind? God’s Truth is the Good News, and what strategy for communicating the Gospel does not include some form of creation? To understand why we need a Savior, we need to understand creation and the events that transpired shortly after. The Gospel doesn’t make sense without a historical interpretation of Genesis. That’s just the way it is. Don’t argue with me about it; talk to the Lord who inspired His Word to be written the way it was.

We have come to a good ending point for this week’s post. I hope you’ve found this educational and thought-provoking. I always enjoy these. Take care and thank you for reading.

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.

by Steve Risner

Last week, we began looking at a writing from sciencenetwork.uk in association with UCCF, talking about how being a Christian does not mean you must reject evolution. We started going through this article nearly line by line. You can view the first installment of this series here. Let’s pick up where we left off:

“[Evolution is] often implied to mean ‘the belief that all of the living world (and indeed the whole universe) came into being by a process of natural selection, genetic drift, etc. that was totally random, began purely by chance, and was absolutely unguided by any kind of Creator.’” Most evolutionists would take issue with this oversimplification. But, yes, most evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, chemical and stellar evolution, the emergence of solar systems and planets, and eventually abiogenesis leading to universal common descent from a single common ancestor. Show me evolutionists who don’t believe these things are natural occurrences. There are likely some but very few. And when one says “evolution,” this is almost always what is meant. Why hold hands with atheists and other secularists to disrespect the Word of God while claiming to hold to some sort of truth? Was God not capable of informing us of His work and how He produced the universe? Was He just waiting for atheists/secularists like Darwin and Lyell and Huxley to explain the truth to us? In nearly all conversations, when the term “evolution” is talked about, this is what the discussion is about. They will start with “evolution” as the adaptation or small change due to a variety of reasons and then jump to “evolution” meaning this more naturalistic and unscientific approach to the living world.

“Do you see how that last definition is very different to the previous two?” We covered the previous two in the previous blog post. In the minds of most evolutionists, these uses of the word are not that different. If they are different, then most of the evolutionists I’ve interacted with (which is probably thousands by now) are dishonest because they talk about one definition and then assume it means the other is true as well. It’s very often we hear about “evidence for evolution” and the “fact of evolution” while what is being talked about are slight changes in a population over time—often adaptive changes that swing back and forth like the beaks on the finches that Darwin noted. If you’re going to talk about “evolution” like this, don’t confuse it with universal common descent. They are not the same thing and are hardly related.

“Clearly, Christians have to reject the idea of a totally random, unguided start to life with no Creator!” Clearly, the author of this article hasn’t interacted with many theistic evolutionists since nearly all of them that I’ve spoken with do, in fact, believe that random, natural processes did ALL of it without the assistance of God or without Him after He wound it all up and let it rip. So “clearly,” while Christians should reject a completely natural/materialistic origin for the universe and life, many (maybe most) do not. For a lot of them, God is something they throw on top of the mess as an afterthought. “Yeah, evolution is true, and random, unguided processes account for the biodiversity we see on earth, but, I mean, God was there.”

“…if by ‘evolution’ you mean evolution without a Creator.” This is interesting because the only real difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution is the theistic evolutionist will insert a Creator while the atheist has no need for one. In other words, there’s no real difference apart from the theistic evolutionist inserting a creator because he feels good about doing so. One of these is what the Bible refers to as a fool to be pitied. The only difference between them and the other group is one is honest enough to admit there has to be a Creator. They just don’t like to believe what that Creator told us He did. The Word tells us the existence of the Creator is obvious to everyone and that we are all without excuse.

“But rejecting evolution as a complete worldview doesn’t mean we have to chuck out evolution as a scientific theory.” For most, the distinction is hardly noticeable. And if by “evolution” we’re meaning minute changes—adaptations, epigenetic changes, degenerative mutations, population isolation, etc.—then sure. We not only can accept this but we should. It’s what we see all around us. But if we mean something more like a slime ball in some warm pond somewhere that began to diversify into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals until ultimately man; well, no, sorry. That’s not science. That’s not factual. That’s not even remotely plausible let alone likely.

“We have a God who’s big enough and powerful enough to create any way he wants to, right?” Of course, and He explained in a great amount of detail how He did this. On days 1-6, He was busy, creating the universe, earth, seas and land, sun and moon, and sea, sky, and all the creatures. Finally, He created man in His own image. This is written very clearly in Scripture. Anything that doesn’t work with this is in opposition to the Truth of God and His creative acts. He could have done it any way He chose. He chose the way He told us about in the Bible (not just Genesis). I love how theistic evolutionists like to take the angle that “God is big enough to do it however He wanted,” but in the same breath they say, “There’s no way He could make the universe in 6 days. What? Is He some sort of magician?” I’ve had people say this very thing to me—people who claimed to be believers. I’m not sure what they believed in, but it didn’t seem to be the Bible or the God found in its pages.

“Either mechanism for creation is totally legitimate for God to use if he wants to.” Sure, but one involves a beautiful creative act while the other involves death, mutation, and genetic destruction. Which seems more God-like? Which one seems “good”? Which one was described to us in detail by Him? Which one was attested to by numerous Biblical authors? Abiogenesis and universal common descent are nowhere to be found in Scripture. Not a single hint.

“He’s God, after all!” So let Him be God. Let Him be the authority on the matter. Stop calling Him a liar.

“There’s nothing in the theory of evolution itself which says it couldn’t be designed and directed by God.” In the minds of most evolutionists, this is false. In fact, the theory of evolution is built on naturalism. The Big Bang and all that comes with it is built on naturalism. Naturalism says nature is all there is and is responsible for all that happens. Again, the only difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution is one arbitrarily inserts a creator to fill in the gaps. That’s it. Because they want you to believe it’s scientific, many proponents of the theory of evolution will indeed claim there is no room for God in the theory because, by definition, the theory only describes nature. God is not natural; He’s supernatural.

We’ll pause here again so we can digest this all and think about the implications. Is God God? Is He honest? Is He sufficient? Is He able to do what He said He did? Is He able to tell us what He did?

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.

by Steve Risner

After an abnormally long hiatus from writing, I had my interest piqued when someone online posted an article from sciencenetwork.uk about how it’s okay for Christians to believe in evolution. This platform seems to be an extension of the UCCF, University and Colleges Christian Fellowship. The article is titled, “Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” It was decently written and made some good points, but along the way, they often seemed to talk out of both sides of their mouth. As a Biblical creationist who has studied the topic for over 30 years, below is what I feel needed addressed from this article.

The article begins by saying that their title is controversial. They’re correct. But it’s only controversial because people have forsaken sound logic and given up basic reading comprehension skills to toss out what the Bible clearly tells us about creation and when it happened. They’ve accepted the humanist origins myth first and then tried to cram the Bible’s narrative into that—melding two different religious views on the subject of origins.

But they move on to say, “…[the biology students are] being taught in lectures seems to totally contradict what their Christian community has told them they should believe about creation.” This is disingenuous. It’s not that biology is teaching something contrary to some unfounded, odd interpretation of Scripture. This statement would be honest if it said, “…seems to totally contradict what their Bible has told them they should believe about creation.” This is obviously what the Bible shows us—God created the heavens, earth and all that is in them and He did it in 6 days. Adam was created on day 6, and from Adam to Jesus was about 4000 years give or take. Jesus lived 2000 years ago or so. This can be drawn from the Biblical text and corroborated with external sources. A belief in universal common descent is nowhere to be found in the pages of Scripture. In fact, much to the contrary.

“…it’s a choice between the authority of God’s word and the weight of scientific evidence.” This is why it’s hard to trust evolutionists. They say things out of both sides of their mouths, or they bait and switch, or they simply don’t understand what the basics are. It’s a choice between two competing worldviews. What they’re referring to as “science” is not science at all. Yes, evolution is a fact. But universal common descent is a fabrication and not scientific at all. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and evolutionists refuse to understand how the limits of science work. This is a clash of philosophy or, more accurately, religions. We don’t argue the facts or deny them. As Biblical creationists, we just understand that facts and opinions about those facts are not the same thing and don’t carry the same weight.

“But what if you don’t have to choose?” You don’t; this is a false dichotomy. Science and the Bible are not in conflict. However, the humanist origins myth and the Bible are seriously at odds.

“…evolution does make sense of the data.” I studied this for over 30 years in high school, college, and grad school. If you mean evolution as small changes in a population over time due to a variety of reasons, sure. If you mean evolution as in universal common descent, not at all. Not only does it not make any sense, but it’s also naïve. The number of perfectly timed and perfectly placed mutations necessary for real change to occur is beyond any reasonable person’s ability to stretch reality.

“…this doesn’t mean you have to give up on the God who inspired Genesis.” Sure. But believing in universal common descent does mean you have to reject what God said in Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, the Gospels, Paul’s writings, Peter’s writings, John’s writings, and a host of others. You are welcome to be inconsistent and carry internal contradictions, but don’t encourage others to follow you in this lunacy. As a follower of Christ and someone who trusts God’s Word, I reject the humanist origins myth—that is the Big Bang and all the cosmic evolution that had to take place after that, including abiogenesis and universal common descent from a single common ancestor.

“And if your non-Christian course mate thinks the gospel is compelling, but they couldn’t possibly believe that the world was created in the space of one week – that doesn’t have to stop them from following Jesus.” The Truth is offensive to those who are at war with God. Compromising the Truth of Scripture to win souls means you’re selling them a false Gospel. If you are embarrassed by the Bible and if you’re twisting the words of Scripture so you can win a friend, you’re not being honest with them or yourself. Can your friend believe a man dead 3 days rose from the grave under His own power and authority? It’s much harder, in my estimation, to believe in the Resurrection than it is to believe in the creation and Flood narratives.

“…you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” Very few people contest this, regardless of how you define evolution.

“In reality, we use the word ‘evolution’ in an everyday sense to mean any of a whole spectrum of related ideas.” This is what we’ve been saying forever. Evolutionists like to bait and switch or, more specifically, motte and bailey. It happens all the time. They say one thing and get you to agree and then, without indicating it, they use the same word but apply a completely different definition.

“‘Accepting evolution’ could just mean agreeing with the statement that organisms change and adapt to their surroundings over time, which is easy enough to observe in nature.” Few do not understand and accept. This is actually scientific. It’s observable. It’s demonstrable. Creationists do not argue against this at all. This is what most evolutionists will get creationists to agree to, but then they switch meanings (see below).

“…did everyone else look at peppered moths as a case study?” This is glorified as a wonderful example of evolution when it has nothing at all to do with it. Both colors of moth existed before and after “selection.” The relative numbers of each may have changed for a period. That is not evolution and is not at all related to universal common descent. And, as this article points out, it’s one of the best examples they’ve got, yet folks still believe this nonsense. If this isn’t indoctrination, I don’t know what is.

“Or we could use ‘evolution’ to mean the idea that all species, humans included, are descended from a single common ancestor, a single-celled organism swimming around in the primordial soup several billion years ago.” Yes, you can believe this, but it’s at odds with actual science and is completely at odds with what the Bible clearly tells us in multiple places about creation. Even the words of Christ Himself contradict this belief in universal common descent. Why trust man’s skewed interpretation of data he’s collected from a fallen world—beliefs that will be overturned by the next generation—rather than trust the Words of Almighty God who was there and told us about it? Do you believe Him or not? What other supernatural or historical events do you not accept from Scripture? Atheists, who are openly at war with God, need the Big Bang and universal common descent for their faith to exist. It’s the only reason such things are accepted. But to make their situation not look so utterly naïve, they slap the label “science” on it so they’re arguing from the smart guy’s position. It’s not true at all. Naturalism explains a lot, but it cannot explain origins, not even close.

We will rest here and pick it up again next week. I hope you find this quote-by-quote approach useful. I would encourage you, if you are interested, to search some of the key words in today’s blog post in the Worldview Warriors blog page to see other posts that have been written on the topics. Thanks for reading!

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.

by Steve Risner

In the movie The Secret Life of Pets, we see that when no humans are watching, our pets act completely differently. They do things we didn’t think they could or would. But they only do them because they know we won’t find out. How does this apply to the Christian life?

I’m sure you can see where this is going. The secret lives of Christians should not be secret. As a believer, I firmly believe that the way I am in public should be no different than the way I am in private. When I’m with people, the things I think, say, and do should be consistent with those things when I’m by myself. Now, I’m not suggesting we should not have some discretion when it comes to airing issues publicly and things like that. But I am saying that if we say we believe a certain thing is wrong or bad, we probably should not be doing that thing whether in private or in public.

What am I getting at? Sin is not a normal expression of the Christian life. I don’t believe we can live a sin-free life; the Bible is pretty clear on that as well. But I do believe that if we consistently return to the same sins or act like something is sin in public and then privately practice it, we are lying to everyone including ourselves. This does terrible things to our relationship with the Lord and to others, and it can be devastating to our self-image. The results of living a contradictory life can cause any number of psychological issues ranging from projection (acting like others are doing what you’re doing) to self-hatred, bitterness, and insecurity issues. I know this from experience. I think it’s safe to say we’ve all done this at some point in our lives. Realizing it and putting stop to it are what’s important. I suggest praying about it and, in many situations, find a person you trust to be accountable to.

Living a double life can be a self-destructive scenario. There are usually two ways things go for someone living a secret life of sin: they’ll either come to some sort of crisis and break, allowing the Father of peace to radically change their lives, or they’ll fall away because they know in their hearts the faith they claim they have publicly is a farce. Living a lie, especially when it costs you something, rarely survives very long. As Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters.” Eventually, you’ll despise one while clinging to the other. Along this second path, too often we’ll find that others are torn down in the process. Our sin can have devastating impacts on the lives of others as well, which is another reason to avoid the secret life of sin.

The Bible has a fair bit of warning for the believer who is harboring secret sins. In the book of Proverbs, written primarily by Solomon but compiled by priests under king Hezekiah, it says, “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion.” Many believe they are hiding their sins, possibly even from God. What a foolish thought! The Lord exists in all places at all times, and He sees everything. Often times, we may believe we’re “getting away with it” when, in reality, we’re strangling our relationship with Jesus and hurting ourselves and possibly others. We may hide sins from other people, but the Lord will always know.

In Ezekiel 8:12, the Lord is speaking to the prophet saying, “He said to me, ‘Son of man, have you seen what the elders of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, ‘The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.’’” It’s so easy to think that since we don’t see the Lord right in front of us that He’s ignorant of our deeds—the things we think, say, or do. But we know He's with us always; He sees all things and knows our hearts. In Jeremiah 17:10, He tells us, “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”

The Old Testament is filled with instances where God’s chosen people, the Israelites or Jews, turned from the Lord, doing evil in His sight. But often times, these things started in secret. A little sin here and there in the dark and who would know? But eventually, sin grows and engulfs us. The people of Israel repeatedly turned to open idol worship, serving false gods that did nothing for them except cause the Lord to reject them. Isaiah says, “Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, ‘Who sees us? Who will know?’” Living a “secret life of sin” really is living in sin. It’s not a secret to the Lord at all.

Are you struggling? Are you not sure why it seems like everything has fallen apart or the Lord isn’t with you? Look into yourself and judge. Are you harboring sin? Are you living what you think is a secret life of self-indulgence or sin? It’s very unlikely the Lord will bless a person who is willfully living in rebellion against Him. This is brought out in Scripture many times, especially in the Old Testament. The Jews were turned over to their enemies many times because they had forsaken the Lord their God.

In Deuteronomy 28, we see God takes obedience and disobedience very seriously. This isn’t to say you will lose your salvation if you disobey. We all fall short at some point, some more than others. But this chapter in Deuteronomy gives a list of blessings to God’s people for obeying Him. It’s 14 verses of, “If you follow Me with all your heart, I will….” But if you read the remaining verses of that chapter, you’ll see God spends a great deal of time expressing what He’ll bring on His people if they do not follow Him wholeheartedly. This list of “curses” isn’t 14 verses long; it’s 53 verses long! God takes our disobedience very seriously, whether that sin is public or private. You can read about an instance where God punished not just the man who sinned but all of Israel for his private sin in Joshua 7. Earlier, in chapter 6, Joshua tells the Israelite army to take Jericho but they cannot take anything from the city as it was devoted to destruction. This meant not a single article could be taken from the city—it was all God’s. But Achan stole from the Lord. He took a few a nice robes and some gold and silver that would amount to about $24,000 in today’s world. Now, I suppose $24,000 sounds like a lot of money. But the man disobeyed the Lord and 36 of Achan’s fellow countrymen were killed by the enemy soldiers of Ai. This demonstrates how a life of sin can not only harm us, but it can easily impact those around us.

Living a life of secret sin can destroy you. Secretly viewing pornography online, spending your money on drugs or gambling, gossiping, telling “little white lies”—all of these and so many more can deteriorate your relationship with the Lord and also harm those you love and care about and who care about you. Secret sins can be the hardest to deal with because we first need to come clean. That means sitting down with a trusted person and confessing our sins to them. It also often means we need them (or someone else) to keep us accountable. Dealing with sin is frequently a team effort. I highly recommend getting help. Yes, we need the Lord and He is the true deliverer. But sometimes, as the Word tells us, we need others to help us along our journey to living a life worthy of the calling.

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.

by Steve Risner

After a short break, we’re looking back at interviews done by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina University, a paleontologist who discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Her findings are consistent with what Biblical creationists believe and have believed all along: that creation of the earth and therefore life forms like dinosaurs happened about 6000 years ago and that dinosaur fossils were likely from the Flood of Noah’s day which was about 4400 years ago or so. Creationists have been attacked for saying such things, but it’s obviously true. We will look at some of the things Dr. Schweitzer, a Christian and former YEC (young-earth creationist), says about her discovery today.

Let’s start with something we’ve often said about how scientists, in their bias, may work in some of these scenarios. Dr. Schweitzer says:

And the danger of thinking you know everything is that it squashes curiosity and discourages further investigation. When I started down this path that I'm on, everybody “knew” organics don't persist in dinosaur bone. The bones are just too old. Organics degrade. You can't get DNA. You can't get cells. You certainly are not going to get cells in tissues. Well, so nobody looks. And if nobody looks...

Everybody “knew” organics don’t persist in dinosaur bones for two reasons: 1) because they believe dinosaur bones are tens of millions of years old and 2) research shows us that soft tissue can only persist for, under the most ideal conditions, for maybe 100,000 years if we’re lucky. Dr. Schweitzer acknowledged this, saying, “So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved.” In other words, what we believe may be incorrect or what we have studied in the lab and determined fairly conclusively is incorrect. Hmm. It seems a lot of times that scientists don’t want to follow the science, especially if it means they need to abandon preconceived ideas and beliefs that are unverifiable.

Other things Dr. Schweitzer said on this topic of not believing what her evidence was trying to tell her were things like: “…of course everyone knew there cannot be organics in bone this old…” And, after being questioned by someone about what looked like blood cells in the sample, she said, “’What do you think they are?’ And I said, ‘Well, I know they can't be blood cells, but they're in the right place, the right location, the right size, and they're nucleated.’” After another colleague saw the red blood cells, she recalls, “My colleague brought it back and showed me, and I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years.” She went so far as to walk on eggshells for a while, even using vague terms to not draw too much attention. “I never called them blood vessels or red blood cells. I said, ‘vessel-like structures,’ ‘cell-like structures.’”

Creationists are often badgered for taking Dr. Schweitzer’s work for what it seems to indicate: that the belief in dinosaur bones being at least 65 million years old is wrong. Many scientists have decided to hold on to this belief and have instead rejected the scientific research telling us soft tissue cannot persist for tens of millions of years. Do you see the problem here? They’ve decided to uphold a belief rather than trust the science. Yet, creationists are ridiculed for such things routinely. In fact, Professor Jack Horner, Dr. Schweitzer’s mentor, even recategorized the facts of the research to be called “assumptions.” In Discover Magazine, Professor Horner says that if soft tissue can last 65 million years, “there may be a lot of things out there that we’ve missed because of our assumption of how preservation works.” You see, it’s not factual anymore that research tells us soft tissue cannot last 1/650th of the time frame they require. It’s an assumption. Perhaps it would do the good professor a little better to realize that claiming the dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old is an assumption—an unprovable one at that. While I can agree our assumptions can cause us to miss things, he’s declared the wrong bit of information an assumption.

With her discovery, her fist instinct, because she “knew” that soft tissue couldn’t be there, was to deny it and then, after she came to grips with it, to hide it. She says in this interview, “And so I sat there and I thought, ‘I'm not telling anybody.’” Obviously, she didn’t stick with that strategy. But, again, creationists are criticized for giving Dr. Schweitzer grief over this find, but the truth is she believed her own colleagues would bad mouth her. And they did. In her words, “The results were not well accepted. I mean, they were very controversial.”

This is one place of several where science can break down in terms of its objectivity. Either fear of ridicule and loss of funding squelch new discoveries or the desire for more funding and notoriety force sensational finds that really might not be so sensational. I believe the discovery of “Lucy” was like this. I wrote a little about that in this blog post called “Lucy’s Split Personality.” Following that link, you can see another famous scientist pointing to the exact same problems with some scientists. Johanson says, “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.” The “other evidence” in this case would be research I’ve linked to previously that tells us soft tissue cannot remain remotely intact for 65 million (or in some cases a half billion) years.

But this is truly an example of, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind.” Dr. Schweitzer even recognizes the truth in the research, saying, "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade. If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?" Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years, says an article on the topic in Discover Magazine.

As I’ve stated often and even in this series, the “unbiased science” that we all want to trust so much comes down to money and publicity. Dr. Schweitzer complains about this, rightly so I would think, saying, “That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding.”

For creationists, truth doesn’t rest on funding. It is based on the Word of God. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” The ultimate source of truth is not found in science or scientists but in the God we serve. There are truths that the world can give us—the weight of a gallon of milk, the speed of the moon rotating about the earth, the conductivity of a certain metal. But there are truths far more important than this that truly give us meaning and purpose. Truth that answers questions like: Where did I come from? What is my purpose? Where am I going? Who am I? These questions are found answered in the Word of God. I hope you’ll join me as I join David as he says in Psalm 25:5, “Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.”

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.

by Steve Risner

In my post last week, we took a look at some statements from Dr. Mary Schweitzer (famed North Carolina State University paleontologist who is noted as the person to bring to light soft tissue found in fossils allegedly tens or even hundreds of millions of years old) that I thought we could all agree on —God is awesome, and His creation praises His name and points us to Him (more or less). I like to find common ground if possible, and this was a pretty easy bridge to connect. But moving on in the same article found in Discover Magazine, Dr. Schweitzer says some things I fundamentally disagree with. Let’s take a look.

Some of this quote is from the article and not directly from the good doctor. But the article reads as follows: “Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: ‘That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.’”

Although I’ve been criticized for thinking I know more about “science” than this professional who is an expert in her field, this article in Discover Magazine tells us up front here that this paleontologist’s opinion on theology is what we’re talking about. It says, “Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating.” This is where the argument lies—in differences of opinion on theology and not on the “science,” if we’re going to be gracious enough to call it that.

Why someone would think that death and destruction over billions of years of struggle is theologically exhilarating is something I can’t connect with. To be fair, creationists understand that life can evolve. But we have to be careful to understand what “evolve” means; it means different things to different people and in different contexts. We all know organisms can adapt over time in many cases. We all understand that epigenetic changes, population isolation, genetic drift, and predominantly degenerative mutational changes can cause a population to be slightly different over large periods of time. This has nothing to do with universal common descent or evolution from a single common ancestor. So, I suppose, understanding that creationists understand and acknowledge that over time there can be slight genetic changes in a population means the theistic evolutionist doesn’t have a monopoly on the topic.

But since there isn’t a shred of evidence to show us that one kind of organism can mutate over time into a completely different type (for example, a multicellular glob of algae will never develop over time into tube worms or an anemone which will never evolve into a fish that will never evolve into some sort of walking/slithering fish on land that will become an amphibian or some other such nonsense), we don’t believe that. We know the Bible makes no mention of deep time or universal common descent beyond whatever God created during creation week being the common ancestor of that particular kind of organism. Later, whatever walked or flew off of the Ark was ancestral to all the various species of organism that are part of that kind. We’re getting in the weeds here. The point is that struggle and death over billions of years doesn’t sound “theologically exhilarating” to me at all. It sounds awful, and it has no support from the Bible in terms of how God brought life to earth.

They go on in this article to quote Dr. Schweitzer saying, “That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop.” Again, we’ll have to disagree here. First, no one claims “magic” is involved unless they’re trying to make their opponent look weak and foolish. That’s not what anyone says who wants to be taken seriously. God is not a magician. If Dr. Schweitzer believes anytime God moves supernaturally that this is Him being a magician, doesn’t that mean she lifts her nose to all miracles found in God’s Word or around the world since? The Resurrection would be some magical moment that the Great Magician pulled the wool over our eyes, right? We all know magicians are fake. We all know the magic we see on stages done by magicians are just illusions and slight of hand. Is that what God is? Does He just trick us all into believing He’s all powerful? I would hope she doesn’t believe this. I’m sure she doesn’t, but it’s the implication in her statements that lead me to this. We also don’t believe He “pulled everything out” all at once. It took Him 6 days, not because He needed the time but because that’s how He chose to create and so He could model the work week for us, among other things.

But what seems more awe-inspiring? That God sort of wound up the universe and is just sitting back watching as the it evolved and then life, without His creative hand, spontaneously just began? It slowly changed and diversified over billions of years, again without His input, to become all we see around us including humans—the apple of His eye and pinnacle of His creation. Or does it seem a little more impressive that God just spoke everything into existence, and it was? Which requires more power and wisdom? Which demands a God that is beyond all imagination? Which requires God at all? When I look at the awesome beauty in nature—especially the night sky but the amazing creation can be appreciated all around us at all times—I join with the Apostles in Acts 4:24 and say, “Sovereign Lord… You made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.” He alone is worthy of that sort of praise, and He alone is capable of such unimaginable feats.

Dr. Schweitzer is saying she thinks billions of years of struggle and death is some elegant form of creation. I think it’s horrifying. She seems to believe that mutations, which are usually unnoticed but can often times create terrible developmental issues and put an organism into the bondage of some terrible disease or disorder, are “theologically exhilarating.” To be fair, I’m sure she didn’t think all that through when she made this statement, but it is what her statements logically lead us to.

Previously, we noted that Dr. Schweitzer had said, referring to seeing God in nature, “I see His compassion in the world around me.” How are billions of years of struggle and death with developmental issues and disease compassionate? This is logically inconsistent and theologically not in line with the Word of God at all. Again, I do not believe this is what she was thinking about when she made these statements, but it is the conclusion we must draw logically and necessarily from her comments.

In my estimation, not only is theistic evolution devoid of any support from Scripture (which is pretty important), but its implications about God are repulsive as well as unbacked by actual physical evidence. But in all this, the fact that the Bible has nothing to say about such processes is remarkable. To suggest universal common descent is in harmony with the Bible, and especially with Genesis, is laughable. It’s like saying after you read a Weight Watcher’s cookbook, you saw no conflict with that book and with using ice cream and large amounts of sugar in all your recipes. The two are obviously at odds with each other. How seriously would you take someone who suggested they are not?

We’ll continue to dissect Dr. Schweitzer’s discoveries and what she had to say about them next time. Thank you for reading.

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.

by Steve Risner

In 2005, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University found soft, flexible tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone that was supposedly 68 million years old. Dr. Mary Schweitzer rocked the scientific world with this find, at first not believing it herself. This is because scientific research has shown that the degradation of soft organic matter is very quick, relatively speaking. In ideal conditions, it has been determined that soft tissue may last tens of thousands of years or, in extreme cases, maybe one hundred thousand years. This is not even close to 68 million years. But that’s not even the biggest deal in the story. Dr. Schweitzer also found soft tissue in fossils allegedly almost 200 million years old. Other have found soft tissue from tube worms that they believe are over 500 million years old! And we’re supposed to not think this creates an issue for deep time proponents?

I’ve been looking through things Dr. Schweitzer has said on the subject in interviews and the like. She seems like a very nice person and is a believer. In her interviews, she seems genuine and kind-hearted. She says that she grew up as a “conservative Christian” but turned to being a theistic evolutionist while in college. The story basically looks like she wasn’t prepared. Her parents didn’t talk to her about what the secular world was going to try to convince her of before she went to school. They probably should have. I hope to make sure my children are well prepared for whatever might be out there to challenge their faith. Not that I want my children to be brainwashed; of course, no one wants that. But I want them to know how to analyze data and how to look at arguments and be capable of seeing what the data might say and how those arguments may be either strong or weak and what they’re based on.

The previous thing we looked at that Dr. Schweitzer said was, “[God] is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.” This is in response to her believing that God did not create in six days as His Word says but did so as fallen human beings have determined He must have—over eons of time. What I find ironic here is that this statement doesn’t really apply to Biblical creationists at all, or not much anyway, but it does apply to those who come to His Word believing that what the humanist origins myth says as they force it to fit their preconceived ideas. It’s bizarre, really, that she would try to apply this to people who read the Bible and believe God is big enough to do exactly what He said and that He’s capable of explaining it to us. Coming to the Bible believing things that are clearly contrary to it and then trying to force the Bible to be in line with those contrary teachings is exactly what it seems like she’s talking about. They force God to mean what they want Him to mean and say what they want Him to say. That’s not how Biblical interpretation works at all.

However, Dr. Schweitzer says some things I very much appreciate and agree with. Things like “God is so multidimensional,” she says. “I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation.” I think this is beautiful and right on. I believe God is far more complex than most of us give Him credit for. In fact, I don’t think we can accurately understand His character and all His complexities. He’s way too big for a human brain to process. That God is revealed in His creation is awesome! Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, “What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” As previously discussed, this passage is a reminder to us that the fact that there is a Creator is clear to us all. There are many who are hostile toward God that reject Him and claim there is no evidence for His existence. They deny what we all know to be true.

Psalm 19 also beautifully explains God’s revelation in nature this way: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” This is another passage we recently looked at because someone informed me that this passage was either supportive of theistic evolution or difficult for Biblical creationists. Neither was true, but I was told this nonetheless. David, the writer of this psalm, was a great worshipper of the Lord and this psalm is a great reflection of that. Nature does reflect the greatness and character of God. But let’s not confuse the humanist origins myth and its version of how to interpret data with what nature is showing us.

Nature doesn’t say these fossils are millions of years old. Nature says these animals were alive once and are now dead. Nature says there is a detectable amount of certain radioisotopes within the fossils. What that means is completely up in the air. We don’t know if these findings necessarily indicate that a sample is millions of years old. All we know is if we apply a principle to the data, the fossil should be a certain age. But we have no idea if that principle, which cannot be calibrated or verified at all, is correct or not. So, nature doesn’t say life developed over millions of years from simple to more complex organisms. Nature doesn’t say fossils are millions of years old. Nature doesn’t say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Nature tells us that a certain fossil was found in a certain layer in a certain area. What we gather beyond that is imagined by the observer; it’s not what nature tells us. The philosophical or religious beliefs of the person looking at it might say these things. This is not the same as nature saying them. Interpretation of the data is a big piece in this puzzle. But the greatest piece to the puzzle of origins is the Bible. A solid understanding of what it says on origins is critical in understanding anything we see in nature.

We’ll cover a little more next time. Thank you for reading. Keep the faith, my friends.

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.

by Steve Risner

Recently, we’ve been exploring some very interesting findings by Dr. Mary Schweitzer and several others since. Dr. Schweitzer is a Christian and a paleontologist. In interviews she’s done, she has said she started college as a “YEC” (which should be labeled a Biblical creationist rather than a young-earth creationist) but later chose to reject that and became, I believe, a theistic evolutionist. This means she is a Christian that does not believe what the Bible says about creation but accepts what the secular version of creation says—that a pinpoint of all matter and energy rapidly began expanding 14 billion years ago and out of it came all the things we see in the universe including life on earth.

What findings of hers are we so excited to read about? About 20 years ago, she published that she had found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone. This was remarkable because scientific studies have shown fairly conclusively that soft tissue might be able, under ideal conditions, to last a hundred thousand years or so but most likely much less. This Tyrannosaurus was allegedly 68 million years old. So, either the science that seemed fairly conclusive was off by nearly one thousand times or the leg bone of this dinosaur was not nearly 68 million years old. Later discoveries would mean the research on soft tissue breakdown was nearly ten thousand times off. That, or the fossils weren’t nearly as old as they believed. Unfortunately, when faced with a challenge brought by real science, evolutionists will often make up something out of thin air to explain the problem. That’s what has happened here.

Let’s continue to look at some of the things Dr. Schweitzer said about this topic. Last time we ended with this statement: “If you step back a little bit and let God be God, I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.”

As I stated, I think she’s right here. The Bible, which clearly teaches us that God made everything in a week in a mature form and He did this about 6000 or so years ago, and what we see in nature do not contradict each other. But when she says this, she means the Bible doesn’t say what it clearly says about creation. She means that her interpretation of the data, which coincides with the humanist origins myth, fits nicely with the Bible not saying God created everything maturely about 6000 years ago.

I find it interesting that she says that God is not obligated to meet our expectations when that is what evolutionists and Big Bang proponents do—they force God and His Word to squeeze into their tiny little box of human understanding. God is not obligated to do anything, but He is truthful and righteous. When He speaks, He speaks truth. The God of the Bible is unimaginably bigger than the god of theistic evolution. I agree with the prophet in Jeremiah 32:17 when he says, “Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.”

I believe God is big enough to create all that there is from nothing. They believe He took billions of years to figure out how to fashion the universe for life and that He had little if anything to do with life forming on earth. I find Him absolutely essential to the universe’s existence and for life to exist. They find Him to be a bystander—watching but not really doing much with it; He sort of wound up the universe like a watch and has just let it go to do its thing.

Dr. Schweitzer goes on to say in this interview: “Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought.”

I like this and think it’s something lost on many today on both sides but more so on the side of deep time and universal common descent. What I’m talking about is our knowledge—what we actually know about any of this. It’s miniscule in reality. Sure, we know much more now than we did a decade ago or a century ago or 300 years ago. But I feel the comparison is like saying we had 4 drops of the ocean in a bucket and now we have a quart. Compared to the size of the ocean, while that quart is enormous compared to the first few drops, it’s nothing in reality. But man’s hubris makes him believe he’s gotten a lot figured out. Truly, we’ve figured some things out, at least partially. But in reality, we know so very little about the universe and about life and physics and chemistry. We know more all the time, but sometimes that means we know less—the old saying the more you learn the less you know applies here very well. We know so little about the universe that we employ a “fudge factor” into our calculations for things we see in deep space because without it, nothing adds up—literally. That “fudge factor” is dark matter and dark energy which, for the calculations to work, comprises over 95% of the universe! That’s right: we know about 5% of what’s going on out there, but we act like we’ve got it all figured out. Amazing, isn’t it?

Dr. Schweitzer then goes on, to finish this question of the interview, to say something that pains me to read. She said, “But I have no agenda, except to produce data.” This hurts because that’s not what she’s doing at all. Not even close. If she was just going to “produce data,” she wouldn’t be offended by people who interpret that data in a way that is different than hers. However, she is. A couple sentences before this she says, “…being a Christian evolutionary biologist…” We see that she does have an agenda, and she admits it while simultaneously saying she does not. Now, I’m okay with her having an agenda. All honest people will say they do in most cases. I have one. You do. We all do. But if she really thinks she’s just producing data with no agenda, it seems her understanding of how science works is a little lacking. Collecting data is one thing. Making that data tell a story is a completely different thing, and Dr. Schweitzer is apparently unaware of the difference. But this is extremely common in this discussion.

It’s almost ironic, I suppose, that some people in this debate will look at me and point at how I see the Scriptures telling us about creation and the Flood and they’ll say, “That’s just your interpretation!” Which is weird because my “interpretation” is exactly what the Biblical text actually says—literally. But then I’ll look at data, which is not a clear communication from a Divine Being but is just information collected and interpret it in way that makes sense and flows well but is contrary to their way of doing the same. While they scream “That’s your interpretation!” when it comes to a clear communication from God, they will simultaneously yell, “Liar! Stop lying!” when I choose to interpret the information differently than they do. It’s quite bizarre and a little silly, but it’s what they do around the clock.

We’ve gone over it a hundred times, but if we have a clear communication from the Lord and we have fallen man’s skewed interpretation of a cursed creation (keeping in mind that man has been at war with God since shortly after creation) and the two do not coincide, I’m going to have to choose to accept the clear written Word of God over a rebellious man’s view of nature which will likely change tomorrow after more information is gathered.

To wrap up this week, we’ll end with this statement from Dr. Schweitzer concerning how she felt about publishing her discovery. She waited a year to do so because she was “terrified” of the consequences. But she goes on to say, “…a scientist’s job is not to prove things but to question them.” While I agree that this should be true, we find even in her own experience that it is not. She questioned the status quo and received a great deal of backlash for it. And she’s not truly questioning the consensus because she forced her data to fit into the preconceived ideas that were popular at the time. Rather than really question the consensus and say, “Maybe these fossils aren’t as old as we all thought,” she said, “Hmm. This data doesn’t reflect what everyone else thinks, so I’ll have to create a rescuing device to find a solution to this problem.” The data was in stark contrast to the well-established scientific research that says soft tissue can last, if conditions are perfect, for maybe a hundred thousand years. This sample was believed to be 68 million years old. Other samples have been taken of soft tissue from finds believed to be 200 million years old and even 550 million years old. I feel like she didn’t really question much at all.

We’ll continue this saga next time. Thank you for reading.

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.

by Steve Risner

Last week, we introduced Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her discovery that gained her a great deal of notoriety. Some 20 years ago, Dr. Schweitzer had found very well-preserved soft tissue remnants in a Tyrannosaurus leg bone. She and many others of the day refused to believe it due to the common understanding and scientifically verified reality that soft tissue will degrade into an unrecognizable form in several thousand or, in ideal conditions, perhaps a few hundred thousand years. These fossils were believed to be 68 million years old. Since that time, Dr. Schweitzer has discovered more soft tissue remains in fossils that are allegedly nearly 200 million years old. Others have found similar things in tube worm fossils that are believed to be over 500 million years old. Studies have confirmed that soft tissue will generally break down over a relatively short period of time, so these findings shocked the scientific community.

As I stated last time, Dr. Schweitzer is a believer. I’m happy that she has found her Savior and believe her sincere desire is to serve Him. I just believe, when it comes to her beliefs on origins, that she is wrong. This belief comes from my knowledge of the Bible which clearly teaches what she believes on origins is incorrect. I’d like to delve into some interviews she’s done to explore more of what she thought about what she had found.

In an interview, Dr. Schweitzer spoke with Emily Ruppel. I quoted her in my last blog post and wanted to finish discussing that before we moved on to her next statement. She said, “I think the thing that surprised me most about that class was that I had no idea, coming from a conservative Christian background, that scientists are not all trying to disprove God in whatever way they can.” I thought it was strange she was insinuating that conservative Christians are ignorant about things related to science. Some are, of course. Many different groups of people have smaller subsets within their groups that are not versed on a variety of topics. But to suggest that it’s normal for conservative Christians to be in the dark about science is preposterous, especially when we consider many of the greatest minds science has ever known were Bible believing Christians. I wrote briefly on that in this blog post. It’s a common misconception.

I stated last time that I was prepared to hear the humanist origins myth when I went to school. I had read a variety of books on it, had teachers who loved to push it, and mused over it quite a lot. I tried to see if I could fit what I was being told in my college and doctorate level science courses (that were related in some way) with what I knew the Bible said. I tried for some time to do this. It doesn’t work. Anyone that tells you it does is fooling themselves and/or trying to fool you.

Immediately after the above statement in her interview, Dr. Schweitzer says, “What we were not told growing up is that there’s a lot of very rigorous, hard science that allows us to interpret the lives of organisms we’ve never seen—and knowing this made me rethink a few things, because I know God and God is not a deceiver.”

This is important for two reasons. The first reason is it goes back to exactly what I said earlier—that she wasn’t prepared. She admits she wasn’t told about how science works and what scientists do. Scripture tells us in Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4 that we are to raise our children in the fear and knowledge of the Lord and when that child grows, he will not depart from the path he was set on. I think a proper education in this manner would include knowing what the world says and why it’s wrong. But the last thing she says is very important: “…I know God and God is not a deceiver.” This is profound and the implication is exactly the opposite she wants it to be.

God has clearly stated how and when He created in His Word. There could hardly be a more plainly given communication on the matter. Fallen man, who has been in rebellion against God since shortly after his creation, has invented a story based loosely on some data as he looks at a cursed creation. That story is told by many to replace the Creator—this is a fact. Many who adhere to the Big Bang and universal common descent do so because they want to explain existence without God. It’s the whole point for some of them! Far too many believers have decided it’s okay to follow these God-denying rebels down that path. They claim “God is not a deceiver” but fail to recognize that, while this is true, they make Him into a liar with their beliefs in the humanist origins myth. If I have to choose between accepting the clear teaching of the Bible on a topic or the ever-changing, currently popular story told by humans who know very little in reality, I’m going to choose the Word of God every time. How could you be a believer and not choose this way? Man is so arrogant to think he knows better than the Lord—the one who created it all. The hubris is astounding.

There is a long list of things where God says one thing and humans say another. I choose to believe God in those matters. The world says life is a just a chemical reaction and has no real meaning. God says humans are created in the image of God and He has a purpose for each of us. The world says a baby in the womb can be slaughtered up to the moment of birth; it’s just a glob of cells. God says He knew us before we developed in the womb and, again, humans are created special in His image. The world says do whatever you need to get ahead. God says don’t lie or cheat, and work hard. The world says men can have babies. God says that He created them male and female, and I find no other genders mentioned. The list goes on and on. I choose to accept and believe what God has told us rather than what humans have decided. Dr. Schweitzer was forced to choose between believing God Almighty and the creation narrative or believing humans and the humanist origins myth. I believe she chose poorly.

The good doctor goes on to say, “If you step back a little bit and let God be God, I don’t think there’s any contradiction at all between the Bible and what we see in nature. He is under no obligation to meet our expectations. He is bigger than that.”

How someone can read the Bible and say there is no contradiction between Genesis and universal common descent, I have no idea. I’ve been a student of the Bible my entire life. I’ve taken more science courses than I care to recall. I find the tale woven by evolutionists about abiogenesis and universal common descent has no place in the Word of God. There isn’t a single Scriptural reference to support it. Deep time is similar. There is a very clear timeline outlined in Scripture as to when God made Adam – day 6 of creation. Genesis says God called life out of the earth and seas and it was so—animals after their kind were there. There is no mention of universal common descent over eons of time.

A person who claims there is no contradiction between the Bible and universal common descent has no idea what they’re talking about, or they do know and are lying. No rational and honest person can read Genesis and make such a crazy claim. I don’t mean to be so harsh, but it’s preposterous to say such a thing. She’s right—there is nothing in nature that contradicts the Word of God. But the way humanists have chosen to interpret the data is in stark contrast to the Bible. We don’t see universal common descent in nature. We simply do not. We see life. We don’t see evolution (meaning universal common descent from single common ancestor). She’s swapped what we see—life coming from life and small changes taking place do to a variety of reasons—for what we’ve never seen either in real time or the fossil record—life slowly morphing from one type of organism into something different.

It's very common—far too common—for people to say “science” when they mean their interpretation of the data. Sometimes, I suppose, this works but in the case of universal common descent, it clearly does not. Universal common descent is something that cannot be confirmed and has never been observed either in real time or the fossil record. The common saying by evolutionists is, “Evolution (meaning universal common descent and not just change) happens too slowly for us to see here and now but too quickly for the fossil record to capture it.” If this isn’t special pleading, there is no such thing.

We’ll continue looking at Dr. Schweitzer’s findings and what she thinks about her discoveries and how others view them in our next blog post.

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.