Why It's Important, Part 2

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, January 3, 2019 10 comments

by Steve Risner

Happy New Year! I’m praying 2019 is a blessed year for each of you reading this. I wanted to continue with the thoughts I had expressed a few weeks ago when I began writing about the importance of the issue of creation and evolution, and where I think some groups have gotten it wrong. We discussed how statistics show quite clearly that young people who leave the church overwhelmingly admit it is at least in part due to the teachings of evolution and deep time. This is a ploy by the devil, no doubt, and a very effective one. Getting people to doubt God's Word has been his thing since the Garden of Eden when he asked Eve, “Did God really say...?” Casting doubt on God's Word, especially the very foundation of the rest of the Bible, can quickly lead to one leaving the faith. We see that happening in mass numbers these days.

As a product of public schooling and a recipient of a secular college education (although Heidelberg University was allegedly affiliated with a church at its beginning), I know firsthand the steady saturation of humanist philosophy that we can be exposed to in such a setting. For me, because of my parents and church leaders who were good enough to educate me and prepare me for such things, it didn't really challenge me too much in terms of my faith. I realize this is not the case for everyone. But the difference is, I believe, mostly at home. If a young person's parents are not believers, the church needs to make sure that students are equipped to face the challenges we find in secular schooling. To be sure, school is not the only place we find opposition to the Bible or Christianity. We see it all over the place, literally. But a great deal of the influence comes from education. Parents need to understand at least some of the basics, and if it's over their heads or they just can't get it, they need to get their children in contact with people who do understand it and who are not afraid to express their faith in the Bible. The ministry of Worldview Warriors has several contributors who are familiar with the subject of creation and evolution. We are not afraid to discuss such things with young people, and we actively seek out opportunities to do so.

Thousands of young people leave the faith every year simply because no one explained to them the fact that the Big Bang is not scientific. The Big Bang, at best, is a historical idea—nothing more than a story made up to explain our existence apart from Genesis. Young people were not told that Darwinism not only is also a historical idea, and both it and the Big Bang rely heavily on miracles and on suspending numerous scientific observations or laws. They are exposed to strawman representations of the Bible's claims or about Biblical creationist models, and those strawman ideas make creationism look foolish. All the while, the evidence actually strongly supports the Bible and the Biblical worldview while the “scientific” stance is allowed to get a pass repeatedly on violating scientific observation and laws.

Young people will be challenged. There is no doubt. I fully support homeschooling children, but if you feel that homeschooling your children will prevent this, I have news for you: I know several homeschooled children who are not walking with the Lord at all these days. There is a lot more to it than not exposing children to the humanist philosophies that are so rampant in society. In fact, you can't prevent it completely. My children are part of the public school system. It's not an option for us, really, otherwise. And to be honest, I have confidence in my children that not only will they not be influenced by the humanistic philosophies sold at their schools or on TV or by some of their friends, but that they'll influence their teachers and fellow students in such a way that some will find the Truth simply because my children are there standing for the Truth. If parents want to homeschool your kids, that's great. However, know that no amount of sheltering will work. They must be exposed to the humanistic philosophies that are out there or they'll fall for them hook, line, and sinker when they do encounter them. It's really just a fact.

So even at home, students need to be educated in these tactics and ideas so when they're exposed to them in the world, they'll be prepared. They need to know what Dawkins and the other atheist missionaries say, so they have a response when they're confronted with them. I plan to work with my oldest son first through Mr. Dawkins’ works so he understands the ideas and sees them for their strengths and their weaknesses. If he can reason through them with me now, when he's older and confronted by someone who may have a slightly different twist on a similar humanist idea, he'll be able to formulate a response on his own rather than 1) looking like a fool to the person he's engaging and thus making a mockery of Christianity, and 2) being rocked to the foundations of his faith, forcing him to wonder if he's on the right path.

If you've seen the weaknesses of the atheist's arguments (and there are many weaknesses), it's easy to see through the smoke and mirrors of the newest dressed up version of an old idea and expose it for what it is—nonsense. Atheism is internally inconsistent and fails on numerous occasions to explain a great deal of the world we see around us. It's certainly not based on logic or on science. Science was invented by creationists, and science has repeatedly lead atheists and other non-believers to faith in Christ. This, of course, can only happen if the inquisitor is serious and honest. Unfortunately, it's extremely challenging to find atheists who will honestly look at evidence or reason through this stuff with an open mind. This, as a side note, is strong evidence in my opinion that most atheists aren’t atheists at all but they’re God deniers. They hate God and/or don't want to submit to His will, so they make up some crazy story which includes Him not existing and they fool themselves into at least superficially believing that. But that's for another blog post, how very few, if any, real atheists exist.

So, the idea here is parents and students alike need to be diligent in being prepared to give an answer. We need to likewise be studied and know how to respond if we don't know an answer (which is okay—we don't have to know everything or answer every question to be effective). If we're not aware of a response to a question, the last thing you want to do is make up something that may be totally bogus. That's a great way to push away someone open to the Truth. Simply say, “I'm not sure about that,” or “I haven't looked into that yet. I'll get back to you if that's okay.” In reality, there probably are some questions that don't have answers—we simply don't know because we can't know. That's okay, too. But we need to study and question so we can learn and be comfortable with the Word of God and know in our hearts it's the Truth of the matter (regardless of the subject). Going over films like “The Atheist Delusion” or others like that will be good. As a parent/adult, I would even recommend reading books like “The God Delusion” by Dawkins and then, if you feel you're capable, going over Dawkins' arguments with young people and exposing them for how weak and hollow they are. These same arguments will be expressed to our young people by professors, teachers, friends, acquaintances, television programs, perhaps even clergy, and a wide variety of other sources, so knowing them ahead of time is a great strategy.

Next week, I'll wrap up this rant on why the creation/evolution issue is so important and hopefully clear up some very common misconceptions about it. Thank you, sincerely, for reading. I hope, even if you disagree with some of what I've written here, that you can at least see where I'm coming from.

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.


Unknown said...

Thank-you Steve Risner. I would like to say one thing. I graduated from Mohawk High School. I was a top ten Honor student. Not saying this to brag. But I just wanted to say in all my years of school (13) I only failed one test. It was a test in Jr. High. I failed it because I did not believe it. It was a test on evolution. I really didn't have too much church time growing up but I did learn that God created me. And even though I received a bad grade on the test my parents supported me. And that was back in the 70's. I appreciate reading this. Touches my heart that a young father such as Steve Risner put so much heart and soul in this Blog. I say Amen! Yours truly, Marty Heldman

Steve Risner said...

Thank you, Marty, for reading and for commenting. I greatly appreciate you and your family! I'll probably see you Sunday :)

ashleyhr said...

''Thousands of young people leave the faith every year simply because no one explained to them the fact that the Big Bang is not scientific. The Big Bang, at best, is a historical idea—nothing more than a story made up to explain our existence apart from Genesis. Young people were not told that Darwinism not only is also a historical idea, and both it and the Big Bang rely heavily on miracles and on suspending numerous scientific observations or laws.'' That is plain false.

And science was NOT invented by 'creationists' (your sort of bigoted dishonest young earther denialist creationists who write false sentences like those above). It was often practised by believing Christians. There - I've corrected your 'facts' for you.

Steve Risner said...

Good day, Ashley. Thanks for reading my recent work. I appreciate your time. Also, a huge thanks for providing a comment, even if it's disrespectful and factually absurd. I appreciate the opportunity to correct your skewed beliefs.

"This is plain false." ---well, not much to work with here. If you have video or audio or even notes taken by students of teachers and/or professors telling them that the BB and Darwinism are, in fact, historical and not truly scientific, I would be interested to see it.
If your contention is that the BB is not historical, I'd be curious what it is,then. It's historical fiction in my opinion. I'm sure you disagree but that's all you can do. You clearly cannot support your humanist origins myth with facts because no facts support it. The facts you'll use are sparse at best but you'll also include enormous amounts of extrapolation and interpretation and, frankly, just made up stuff to make your origins myth appear to be real and scientifically tenable. This is not true, of course, as what we as human beings can possibly know about deep time or the vast majority of the universe is very very little when compared to what there is out there to actually know. Man's hubris is embarrassing in this matter. He is not nearly as smart or wise as he believes he is.

Science was certainly invented by creationists. I have written quite a lot on this. You say, "No, sir!" and act like you've countered or corrected my statements. It doesn't work that way. I will quote a previous writing of mine "Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron" in my next comment. Thanks, again, for the conversation.

Steve Risner said...


Science is broken up into branches i.e. there are different categories of things that science is involved in. Social science—behavioral and societal. Natural science—physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology, biology including zoology and botany. Formal science—logic, mathematics and statistics, even computer science. Applied science—most notably medicine and possibly engineering. We can argue that this field should be called this type or whatever, but the point is that science has different branches. For many of these branches, you will find a creationist at its foundation. For example:

Oceanography: Ben Franklin first scientifically explained the Gulf Stream although men had studied the oceans as long as history goes back. Matthew Fontaine Maury was a believer who published the first text on oceanography.

Geology: Nicolas Steno is credited with 3 defining principles of geology. However, many had described different geologic features and even some processes for centuries before Steno. It was assumed for centuries that the Flood was at least partially responsible for many geologic features. Modern day geologists who are young earth creationists would include Andrew Snelling, Ph.D., Steve Austin, Ph.D., John Morris, Ph.D., Kurt Wise, Ph.D., and Emil Silvestru, Ph.D. Meteorology (the study of the atmosphere): Aristotle is generally given credit for founding this study. Many creationists have added to its principles and applications including Albert Cologne and Roger Bacon.

Even in biology, the science of life, we find creationists at the foundation like Carl von Linné (Carlus Linnaeus) who founded modern biology and the system of taxonomy we still use in biology today. He is especially credited with his work in modern botany. A subcategory of biology, microbiology, was founded by Anton van Leeuwenhoek who was a creationist. He did not invent the microscope but greatly enhanced its usefulness. Andreas Vesalius is considered the father of the modern study of human anatomy. William Harvey, who first accurately described how the circulatory system works, was a follower of Christ as well. He was also instrumental in the creation of the modern scientific method especially in medicine. Gregor Mendol is credited with great advancements in genetics and modern day botany. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that spontaneous generation is an old wives’ tale. Today, a similar idea, abiogenesis, is a core believe by many atheists. Strangely, that idea was debunked two centuries ago.

Another monumental contributor to modern health care is Raymond Damadian. He is a young earth creationist who recently played a role in the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. He is the inventor of the MRI which has advanced the practice of medicine more than nearly anything else in the last 30 years. Lyle Johnson, another creationist, developed the Johnsonian telescope for NASA.

Five of the most notable physicists in history (Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Thomson, and Maxwell)were each outspoken in their conviction and faith that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Einstein was not a Christian, but never the less, each of these men knew in their hearts that only a Creator could account for what they knew to be true in science.

We could also note Joseph Lister, Johan Kepler, Robert Boyle, Georges Cuvier, Lord Rayleigh, Charles Babbage, John Ambrose Fleming, Henri Fabre, Lord Kelvin, George Stokes, Robert Boyle, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pascal, Rudolph Virchow, Louis Agassiz and many others.

---you see, Ashley, that modern science was actually invented by creationist who believe what I believe (very similarly) and would likely scoff or even mock what you believe as foolish and not worth even arguing against. It is obviously true that many in modern times who were not Christians have contributed to science. I have not ever stated only Christians have contributed to science. But the scientific method and each major branch of science was, in fact, established by a creationist--typically of the Biblical kind of creationist.

ashleyhr said...

"even if it's disrespectful and factually absurd. I appreciate the opportunity to correct your skewed beliefs".

Just seen. The usual YEC lies and bigotry directed towards those who criticise them for making factually incorrect comments.

It is factual that the Big Bang and evolution are SCIENTIFIC theories (about the unseen historical distant past). And it is NOT a fact that science was invented by people who believe what today's 'young earth' creationists insist is true.

"You say, "No, sir!" and act like you've countered or corrected my statements."That is a grotesque caricature of my position on how scientific study began, as I have previously stated it to you (including, I believe, mentioning Muslims and the Chinese and their role in pioneering scientific studies centuries ago). Either you have a poor memory - or you are a wilful liar. I suspect the latter.

I NEVER disputed that SOME early scientists were creationist Christians (usually in times hen that was the only option on origins). You are acting as though I did dispute that. ('Biblical' creationists need to be VERY careful when trying to claim Sir Isaac Newton as one of their 'own'.) "I have not ever stated only Christians have contributed to science ...". Good. Because that would be an absurd revisionist falsehood.

Steve Risner said...

"The usual YEC lies and bigotry..." Could you please focus on the "lies" and define "bigotry" for me? Please explain both statements here. I disagree with people who..you, know...disagree with me. That's called having a debate or discussion or, if you need it to be and have to name call, an argument. However, no lies or bigotry here.

"factual that the Big Bang and evolution are SCIENTIFIC theories"--a fact, yes. Correct? No. Not at all. How can you do an experiment on inflation? How can you observe a massive expansion from a singularity? How can you suggest nothing gave rise to everything and call it science?

"about the unseen historical distant past"--yes. history. Made up history that has little actual hard evidence. A great deal of speculation and extrapolation built on a very small set of facts we believe we know about the universe. It's science fiction/historical fiction.

"That is a grotesque caricature of my position on how scientific study began"--I have repeatedly told you in detail how creationists founded nearly every major branch of science including biology. You have not so much as hinted at a comment about that. You keep rambling about things I'm not saying or suggesting. I have never said ONLY Creationists have contributed to science. If you could remove your excessive bias from your skewed interpretation of reality for a moment, perhaps you would see you're arguing against a strawman that only helps prove my point. Argue against what I say, sir, or don't argue. I'm not interested in playing games.

"I NEVER disputed that SOME early scientists were creationist Christians"--uh, again, every branch founded by a creationist. Read "Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron" and comment there please. This is not the place for this discussion. Read and refute it if you think you can. I'm happy to entertain that. Within that post are a long list of creationists who happen to be most of the most notable scientists the world has ever known.

Newton wrote more on theology than science. He was a believer. Don't confuse what Michael Roberts tells you with actual history.

Again: don't be confused. Lots of folks have contributed to science. Most of the founders of what we call science today were creationists. Prove me wrong with names and branches founded if you believe there are enough to make my statement incorrect. Otherwise, see ya.

ashleyhr said...

You wait more than 10 days to respond. Hoping I will forget (I get no notifications) and not see (and not respond to) your continuous bigotry. Thus giving the impression that you outwitted me or that I knew little.

Your latest reply is full of the usual arrogance that accompanies YEC falsehoods. Such as ''I have repeatedly told you in detail how creationists founded nearly every major branch of science including biology''. I do not accept the lists you posted as either complete or as fully accurate in terms of who 'invented' science.

''Made up history that has little actual hard evidence.'' It has vast evidence. You should read up on it.

'' I have never said ONLY Creationists have contributed to science.'' I did not say you did. But I did challenge your falsehood that (your sort of) creationists 'invented' science. (You tried this exact same tactic - after I did not respond because you waited almost a fortnight to reply to me - once again on 14 Feb under your post of 7 Feb. When you wrote: ''This in no way suggests ONLY Biblical creationists have contributed to science and that has never been ANYONE's contention.''.)

''every branch founded by a creationist''. Only your sorts of creationists (young earthers) make that claim. Even if it were true, all branches of science have moved on in knowledge since they were 'founded'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

I have saved this attempted comment (under your blog post of 3 January).

ashleyhr said...

Still sitting on my very recent attempted further comments?

Expect you may delay replying to them as well. As mentioned, I never receive any notification of new comments appearing here - not even my own new comments.

ashleyhr said...

Thank you for publishing my latest comments.