Archive for the ‘Creation’ Category

Albert Mohler Names BioLogos Foundation as Deniers of Inerrancy

Posted: July 19, 2010 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , , ,
19

Albert Mohler started a firestorm at the Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference when he lectured on “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” Mohler connected the proponents of Theistic evolution and other old earth advocates with the denial of Biblical inerrancy among some evangelicals. Mohler identified some of these bedfellows at BioLogos Foundation. Among those mentioned were Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns, contributors to BioLogos.

Here is the Mission statement of BioLogos Foundation:

Our Mission

The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Founded by Dr. Francis Collins, BioLogos addresses the escalating culture war between science and faith, promoting dialog and exploring the harmony between the two. We are committed to helping the church – and students, in particular – develop worldviews that embrace both of these complex belief structures, and that allow science and faith to co-exist peacefully.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.

Mohler also identified other evangelical scholars who have wedded evolution and creationism:

In his lecture, Al Mohler said, “The controversy concerning Bruce Waltke, who even in recent months became a focus of controversy after making a video where he argued that, unless evangelical Christians come to terms with accepting the theory of evolution, we will be reduced to the status of a theological and intellectual cult.” So if you believe in literal 24 hour calendar days of creation in Genesis one and two you are not only ignoramus but a cultus.

The new atheists would agree on this point with Walke as Mohler points out:

Richard Dawkins is the author of the book The Selfish Gene and it is Richard Dawkins who has suggested that Darwinism is what allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. In their new argument very forcefully put forth, they are arguing that evolution is the final nail in the coffin of theism. And they are making the claim that the assured findings and conclusions of modern science make not only the book of Genesis, but theism, untenable. In his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins goes so far as to suggest that deniers of evolutionary theory should be as intellectually scorned and marginalized as Holocaust deniers. Evolution, he says, is a theory only by arcane scientific definition. It is a fact—a fact he says no intelligent person can deny. We have the emergence of the evolutionary worldview and its hegemony in the larger intellectual elites.

The evangelical scholars at BioLogos, however, have clearly brought the findings of science into the hermeneutical process which has led them to accept not only theistic evolution but Biblical errancy.

Mohler exposed this domino effect: We need to think more deeply about this. The BioLogos website has just even in recent days focused its attention on the direct rejection of biblical inerrancy. Understanding that any rendering of the bible as inerrant makes the acceptance of theistic evolution impossible. Certainly implausible. Kenton Sparks writing on that website suggests that, intellectually, evangelicalism has painted itself into a corner—that we have put ourselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac with our understanding of biblical inerrancy. He suggests that the Bible indeed should be recognized as containing historical, theological and moral error. Peter Enns, one of the most frequent contributors to the site, suggests that we have to come to the understanding that, when it comes to many of the scientific claims, historical claims, the writers of scriptures were plainly wrong.

You can read Karl Giberson’s, Darrell Falk‘s, Peter Enns‘ responses to Mohler’s lecture. Giberson believes general revelation should trump special revelation, which is necessary if evolution is the way God brought the universe into existence. These men believe that “the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years.” These Evangelicals argue for an old earth because they believe science over the plain reading of Scripture as in Genesis one and two which demand a young earth.

Mohler mentions the necessity of the literal or normative interpretation of Genesis one and two and that “even more liberal scholars such as James Barr believe any natural reading of the text would indicate that the author intended us to take 24-hour days, calendar days, as our understanding. I am arguing for the exegetical and theological necessity of affirming 24-hour calendar days.”
 
To hold to an old earth because of adhering to evolution has lead some evangelicals to give up the historicity of Adam.  Mohler mention John Stott as an example.
John Stott actually suggests that Adam was an existing hominid that God adopted in a special way, and out of Homo sapiens God implanted his image, and made Adam particularly in his image by ensouling him, and creating in Adam not only Homo sapiens but Homo divinus. Let’s just imagine for a moment what that would theologically require. It requires that there were Homo sapiens who were not the image bearers of God. It requires an adoptionistic understanding of Adam, rather than special creation of Adam.
 
Does the view of Stott in anyway reflect the reading of the Genesis one and two creation of man out of the dust of the ground?
When you give up the historicity of Adam because of the influence of evolution, you also give up the inerrancy of Scripture as Peter Enns at BioLogos demonstrates:
Peter Enns very recently, just even in recent weeks in a series of articles entitled “Paul’s Adam,” I quote here, “For Paul, Adam and Eve were the parents of the human race. This is possible but not satisfying for those familiar with either the scientific or archeological data.” He goes on to suggest that we must abandon Paul’s Adam and suggests that Paul as far as he refers to Adam in Romans chapter five is limited by his dependence on primitive understandings.
 
When you give up the historicity of Adam the next doctrine to fall prey to the influence of evolution is the Fall.
Mohler gives the example of Karl Giberson, another contributor to BioLogos:
Karl Giberson, Eastern Nazarene University, says “clearly the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to reconcile with natural history.”  “One could believe, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history God ‘chose’ two people from a group of evolving humans, gave them his image, and put them in Eden, which they promptly corrupted by sinning. But this solution is unsatisfactory, artificial, and certainly not what the writer of Genesis intended.”
 
What is driving these evangelicals to abandon the grammatical/historical interpretation of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture, the historicity of Adam and the Fall of Adam is the assured results of modern science.
About the assured results of modern science Mohler comments:
The assured results of modern science today may very well not be the assured results of modern science tomorrow. And, I can promise you, are not the assured results of science yesterday.
 
In the New York Times just in recent days there’s been a major article about one particular fossil which is claimed to be a hominid and just about a year ago that same paper presented it as irrefutable proof of a certain trajectory of human evolution. Now you have scientists coming back saying we don’t even believe that it’s a hominid fossil. The assured results of modern science? What do the assured results of modern science say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? What do the assured results of modern science in terms of the methodological naturalism that is absolutely essential to modern science, what does it say about the virgin conception of Jesus Christ? The assured results of modern science?
 
What is assured is the inspiration and inerrancy of God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16) and the young earth presented in Genesis one and two.
 

Science Verses Christianity, Part Last

Posted: September 11, 2009 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , ,
15

Tim Keller rejects the view of Richard Dawkins who “argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.” But Keller believes the view of a six twenty-four-hour day creation is “fortunately…losing credibility with a growing number of scholars.” In both Dawkins’ and Keller’s view, science has undermined the interpretation of Scripture. Keller even says, “There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith.” Keller repudiates the literal interpretation of Genesis one and two in order to believe in theistic evolution: “It is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be.” The theologians who hold to the different forms of theistic evolution contradict themselves in rejecting the creation of the universe in six twenty-four-hour days in order to accommodate the science of atheistic evolution.

The reigning Baptist theologian from the late 1800’s to Millard Erickson was Augustus Strong. He was a staunch conservative for the fundamentals of the faith. Strong, however, had his problems. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture nor in a six twenty-four day creation.

Millard Erickson, who replaced Strong as the reigning Baptist theologian, is a progressive creationist. Both Strong and Erickson believe God used the process of evolution to varying degrees. Strong believed that God used evolution to a greater degree than Erickson: “Evolution is only the method of God.” In Strong’s view, evolution brought brute beast to a certain development and then God miraculously intervened and created a soul in Adam, the first man. “We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s ‘breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man” (Systematic Theology, pages 466-467).  So, according to Strong, evolution provided the body and God the soul.

As a progressive creationist, Erickson, believes that “between these special acts of creation, development took place through the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God created the first member of the horse family.” In regard to man, unlike theistic evolutionists, Erickson believes that “when the time came for man to be brought into existence, God made him directly and completely, God did not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God.” 

Erickson argues against the theistic evolutionary view that the “dust” of Gen. 2:7 cannot be literal dust but must be symbolic for already existing creatures. Here is how Strong explains “dust” in Gen. 2:7: “The ‘dust’ before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust” (page 465). Also from other statements of Strong the dust must have been evolved animals before God breathed into them and the animal became the first man. Erickson presents a good argument against this allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

“The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the reference to dust in 3:19 (the clearer) interpret that in 2:7 (the less clear)” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 483).

And yet, Erickson does not hold to a literal interpretation of “dust.” “The Bible tells us that God made man from the ‘dust’ of the ground. This dust need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial representation which was intelligible to the first readers” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 482). To use Erickson’s logic against theistic evolution’s rejection of the literal meaning of “dust” then at death we do not return to actual physical soil but to some pictorial representation of death. Why cannot we just read the Word of God in the normal sense of language and except what it says? It is this refusal to take God’s Word at face value that has led to theistic evolution, progressive creationism and the age/day theory.

Gleason Archer, who advocates the day-age theory argues against using these passages in Exodus for literal solar days of creation.

“But this does not necessarily presuppose literal, twenty-four hour days, for the seventh day is explicitly hallowed in terms of the completion of the work of creation. For this purpose of memorial observance, the only possible way in which the seventh age (the age of completion, according to age-day theory) could be hallowed would be a literal seventh day of a seven-day week. It would certainly be impractical to devote an entire geologic age to the commemoration of a geologic age” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 188).

Science at times has been wrong, as Wayne Grudem reminds us: “For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun (following the theories of the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1472-1543), he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church….Galileo was forced to recant his teachings and had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life” (Systematic Theology, page 273).

Ken Ham, who is with Answers in Genesis, in a taped lecture, tells about two Sunday school girls who were discussing the six days of creation and one asked the other, “Why did God take so long?” How would you answer that Sunday schooler? Six days were a long time for our all powerful God of the universe to create everything. Could not God have created the universe in six seconds, or six minutes, or in six hours? Why did God take six days? The answer is in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18. These two passages argue for six literal 24 hours days of creation and not ages. Just as God took six literal solar days to create the universe and then rested on the seventh, he has commanded us to labor six days and rest one. If God interprets Genesis one and two literally, why cannot we?

Reading the Fourth Commandment in Ex. 20:8-11 in the normal sense of language, gives the sense that God is comparing the six literal days of creation and his one day of rest to our six days of labor and one day of rest. There is no idea of analogy or allegory is either the Genesis or Exodus texts.

 What is the Biblical account of the origin of the universe and man?      

Gen.1:1-3 is the biblical origin of man and the universe. In Genesis, God is blessing all nations through His people. This theme is seen in the overall outline of the book. In Genesis 1-11, we read of God’s blessings on the human race and then in Genesis 12-50 God’s blessings on His chosen people, Israel. The theme is also explicitly stated in the special promise in Gen. 12:3 where God promised to bless all nations through His people.

The beginning of God’s blessings is in the creation of man in Genesis one and two. There are two accounts of creation in the first two chapters. The general account of the creation of the universe is narrated in 1:1-2:3 and the specific account of the creation of man is given in 2:4-25. Each of these accounts begins with summary statement of introduction (1:1; 2:4) followed by the specifics.                                                                                     

What was the raw material or the states of things when God began to create? The incomplete planet is described in Genesis 1:2 as useless or “without form” as a desert in Dt. 32:10 which is uninhabited. The earth was also lifeless. The planet at this stage was covered with darkness and water. So the planet in verse two was useless, lifeless, and covered in darkness. “Darknesss” in Scripture does not always mean evil as here and in Psalm 104:19-24 where the darkness of night is seen as a blessing from God for which he is to be praised.                                                       

The planet at this stage is full of potential. How did God bring this raw material to its full potential? With this raw material, the great Potter formed the earth and then man out of the dust of the earth. First, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and then God spoke his first creative words in Gen. 1:3 and day by day for six days God removed the incompleteness and deficiencies of earth.

Paul draws an analogy between the incomplete earth and the sinner before salvation in 2 Cor.4:3-6. The sinner before salvation was also useless, lifeless (Eph. 2:1), and in darkness (Eph. 4:18). But then “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). How did God do this work in the sinner’s life? The same as He did with the useless, lifeless, and in darkness planet. The Spirit of God moved on the sinner’s life (John 16:8) when God’s Word was spoken or preached (Rom. 10:17).

Paul himself, as Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9, is an illustration. Saul, on the road to Damascus, in his spiritual uselessness, lifelessness, and darkness, was struck to the ground by a light that was brighter than the noon day sun. That light was Jesus Christ the Son of God who was and is the Light of the world. As you and I witness the Word of God to unregenerate sinners, God’s Spirit will work at opening satanically blinded eyes so the Creator of the universe can once again create a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Science Verses Christianity, Part Next

Posted: September 9, 2009 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , , ,
10

The first tenet of evolution that we discussed was the Eternality of Matter.

Next, we will discuss Spontaneous Generation which states that the first life, the first cell sprung from non-life. Darwin in 1871 wrote in a letter advancing the idea of spontaneous generation. “We could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat and electricity. . . .that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes” (Darwin, Francis. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pages 101, 102). Erwin W. Lutzer has an insightful quote.

In 1954, experiments were conducted in the United States by Stan Miller, whose synthesis in a laboratory produced sizable quantities of amino acids and other organic molecules. Later, adenine, one of the components of DNA, was synthesized from a mixture of ammonia, methane, and water. Thus, the building blocks of life were brought about through human experimentation. But even with the synthesis of amino acids in a highly controlled laboratory, scientists agree that life cannot be sustained without protein, and proteins come only from life. In other words, life would already have to have been here before it began. As evolutionist Taylor admits, ‘The fundamental objection to all these theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation.’ Creationist A. E. Wilder-Smith uses this example: If a baby suddenly appeared without a mother, it would die. Hence, even if a cell were to begin random forces, it would immediately die because there would be no cradle for it” (Lutzer, Erwin. Twleve Myths Americans Believe, Chicago: Moody Press, page 35).

In stark contrast to evolution’s naturalistic spontaneous generation, God’s Word in Gen. 2:7 declares that human life came from God as a special creation when He formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. As Ryrie notes, the creation of Eve presents a special problem for theistic evolutionists who believe Adam came from a long line of pre-Adamic creatures. God finally intervened in the evolutionary process and breathed into Adam the breath of life. But Eve is said by Scripture (Gen. 2:21) to have been created directly from Adam’s side while he slept not from a long line of ever increasing in complexity sub-human beings. Theistic evolutionists, Derek Kidner, must admit a special creation of Eve (Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC [London and Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967], page 28). If God specially created Eve, then why not Adam?

Other tenets of evolution are that a living cell reproduces itself with mutations which produce new species and through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest these new mutations and species survive. However, as Wayne Grudem brings out, after hundreds of years of experimental breeding of various kinds of animals there are no new species. Dogs which are selectively bred for generations are still dogs (page 280). God’s Word says God created “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11, 24). There can be some differentiation among the species. Even among humans there is much variety in size and appearances. “Kind” is used to describe species of animals that are different and the fixity of the species. Lev. 11:14-22 speak of the different species that God uniquely created.

“And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the stork, the heron after her kind, even these of them you may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after this kind.” From this list we learn that God is a God of infinite variety. There is much diversification among these animals and the fixity of the species. There are several different kinds of  owls listed but an owl never becomes a hawk.

Another tenet of evolution is time, that is, the necessity of millions of years for all of this to take place. From my teenager’s biology textbook this view is expressed: “Given enough time, however, even improbable events are almost bound to occur at least once— and once may have been enough for the origin of life on earth” (Arms, page 308). This tenet runs against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says everything is growing older and wearing out and running down. This tenet also violates the Law of Entropy which states that nature left to itself tends toward disorganization not complexity. Wayne Grudem illustrates. Put all the parts of a new BMW in the cargo bay of a 747 and fly to 6000 feet and dump all of the parts. Will they organize themselves before they hit. No! But the evolutionist says, “We need more time”. All right, fly to 20,000 feet and dump all of the parts. Will more time solve the situation? No! Genesis 1, 2 say that God created the universe in six days.

In my last post on Science verses Christianity we will observe that evangelicals like Tim Keller, Derek Kidner, and Millard Erickson reject six twenty-four-hour day creation.

Science Verses Christianity, Part First

Posted: September 7, 2009 in Creation
Tags: , , , , , ,
13

The origin of life is the issue we are wrestling with this week. Psalm 33:6 and 9 make a very clear statement about the origin of life for those of us who believe the Bible to be the Word of God: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

When I was pastoring Swan Creek Baptist Church, I borrowed one my teenager’s biology book just to see what they were being taught in our local public school. Her biology textbook clearly pitted evolution against God’s Word:

For thousands of years, most people believed that each separate species of organism had been specially created. This view was set forth in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. From time to time philosophers proposed that the living world changed over centuries, but by the mid-seventeenth century most of the Western World took the word of Genesis literally and believed that animals and plants were created during the six days of the Creation. From about 1750 on, however, many people became convinced that species changed over the ages (Camp, Karen Arms. Biology-A Journey into Life. Saunders College Publishing, page 249).

The biology textbook went on to discuss Charles Darwin, father of the modern theory of evolution, who studied theology and as a young man believed in special creation.

Years of observation and reading, however, presented Darwin with evidence that seemed incompatible with the notion of God as the Designer and Creator of living things, and a more logical explanation for the origin of species took shape. Darwin then was appointed naturalists on the Beagle, a British naval ship embarking on a five year mapping and collecting expedition. In 1859, Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. In it he marshaled an impressive array of evidence to support his theory. Not until the 20th Century, however, did most biologists fully accept the idea that evolution was by means of natural selection (Camp, page 250, 251).

Did Charles Darwin believe each species was a special creation of God? Let’s hear him on the question:

As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently reoccurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in a manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principles of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Chicago: Thompson & Thomas, n.d., page 457).

More and more 21st century scientists and scholars are rejecting evolution. Paul Le Moine, a French scholar clearly represents this growing group: “Evolution is a fairy tale for adults” (Lutzer, Erwin W. Twelve Myths Americans Believe Chicago: Moody Press, 1993, page 31).

What are the tenets of evolution

First, the evolutionist must believe in the Eternality of Matter. Evolutionists don’t know where matter came from for our planet to exist and life to start as my teenager’s biology textbook declared:

If we could trace the ancestry of living organisms, we should find a long line of cells stretching back billions of years. Each cell came from division of a previously existing cell. . . . But where did the first cell come from? Some people say the first organisms came to earth in spaceships or meteorites, but this only moves the question of how life began to a more distant arena beyond our reach to study (Camp, page 307).

Theologian Wayne Grudem cites an example of the above theory. Francis Crick called his theory “Directed Panspermia.” The theory is that life was brought to earth from a far away planet by a spaceship. About Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for helping to discover the structure of DNA molecules, Grudem observed:

It seems ironic that brilliant scientists could advocate so fantastic a theory without one shred of evidence in its favor, all the while rejecting the straightforward explanations given by the one book in the history of the world that has never been proven wrong, that has changed the lives of millions of people, that has been believed completely by many of the most intelligent scholars of every generation, and that has been a greater force for good than any other book in the history of the world (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press, page 286).

God’s Word declares that God created the universe out of nothing or to use the common Latin phrase, creatio ex nihilo. Creatio ex nihilo is implied but not clearly stated in Gen. 1:1 because the word bara means to create something new and great, such as the universe in 1:1 and man in 1:27. BDB (page 135) defines bara as to shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity but never as something out of nothing. Clearly God used preexisting matter (2:7) to create man. However, John 1:3 does teach creation ex nihilo when it declares “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” There are other verses that use “all things” in relationship to creation: Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; and Rev. 4:11. Grudem reminds us of the significance of rejecting creation ex nihilo.

Were we to deny creation out of nothing, we would have to say that some matter has always existed and that it is eternal like God. This idea would challenge God’s independence, his sovereignty, and the fact that worship is due to him alone: if matter existed apart from God, then what inherent right would God have to rule over it and use it for his glory? And what confidence could we have that every aspect of the universe will ultimately fulfill God’s purposes, if some parts of it were not created by him? . . . .The positive side of the fact that God created the universe out of nothing is that it has meaning and a purpose. God, in his wisdom, created it for something. We should try to understand that purpose and use creation in ways that fit that purpose, namely, to bring glory to God himself. Moreover, whenever the creation brings us joy (cf. 1 Tim. 6:17), we should give thanks to the God who made it all (Grudem, page 264).

In my next post, I will discuss other evolutionary tenents  such as eternality of matter and spontaneous generation.

The New Atheism, Part One

Posted: March 15, 2009 in Atheism, Creation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

According to an article in Wired the New Atheism differs from the old atheism in mode and mood. New atheism is more aggressive in attacking Christianity. The leaders of New Atheism are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and with evangelistic fervor, the new atheists not only reject theism but have gone on the assault. Fox News reported that The American Humanist Association ran a Washington, D. C. $40,000 holiday ad campaign on buses saying, “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake” (Fox News.com Wednesday, November 12, 2008). In reference to his book The God Delusion, Dawkins said: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, New York; Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, pg. 28). Here is another sample of Dawkins’ venom:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blookthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (p. 51).

With all its rhetoric, however, the New Atheism does not address the origin of life.

The origin of life is the issue we are wrestling with this in this post. Psalm 33:6 and 9 make a very clear statement about the origin of life for those of us who believe the Bible to be the Word of God: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

When I was pastoring Swan Creek Baptist Church, I borrowed a high school biology book from one of the teenagers in our church just to see what they were being taught in our local public school. Her biology textbook clearly pitted evolution against God’s Word:

For thousands of years, most people believed that each separate species of organism had been specially created. This view was set forth in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. From time to time philosophers proposed that the living world changed over centuries, but by the mid-seventeenth century most of the Western World took the word of Genesis literally and believed that animals and plants were created during the six days of the Creation. From about 1750 on, however, many people became convinced that species changed over the ages (Camp, Karen Arms. Biology-A Journey into Life. Saunders College Publishing, page 249).

The biology textbook went on to discuss Charles Darwin, father of the modern theory of evolution, who studied theology and as a young man believed in special creation.

Years of observation and reading, however, presented Darwin with evidence that seem incompatible with the notion of God as the Designer and Creator of living things, and a more logical explanation for the origin of species took shape. Darwin then was appointed naturalists on the Beagle, a British naval ship embarking on five year mapping and collecting expedition. In 1859, Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. In it he marshaled an impressive array of evidence to support his theory. Not until the 20th Century, however, did most biologists fully accept the idea that
evolution was by means of natural selection (Camp, page 250, 251).

What did Charles Darwin believe was the origin of each species? Let’s hear him on the question.

As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently reoccurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in a manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principles of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Chicago: Thompson & Thomas, n.d., page 457).

More and more 21st century scientists and scholars are rejecting evolution. Paul Le Moine, a French scholar clearly represents this growing group: “Evolution is a fairy tale for adults” (Lutzer, Erwin W. Twelve Myths Americans Believe Chicago: Moody Press, 1993, page 31).

In Part two, I will discuss the tenets of evolution.

Is the Earth “Young” or “Old?”

Posted: January 17, 2009 in "Reader's Favorites", Creation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

THERE is a debate today among evangelicals concerning the age of earth. One view is more sympathetic to scientific evidence than the other. I think the reason for different conclusions about the age of the earth, is the inclusion of the so-called evidence from science into the hermeneutics of Genesis one and two. Both “Old Earth” and “Young Earth” advocates’ use of science is unconvincing. Science should not determine our interpretation of Scripture. The historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics alone should equip us to rightly divide God’s Word.

For example, the “Young Earth” advocates say God created with the appearance of age. This is obviously true with Adam and Eve. On their first day on earth, they had the appearance of being twenty or thirty. What about planet earth? Did it also have the apparent age of twenty or thirty? Wayne Grudem asks “Why would God create so many different indications of an earth that is 4.5 billion years old if this were not true” (Systematic Theology, page 307)? This is how old the earth is according to some evangelical “Old Earth” advocates like Davis A. Young. Of course, “Young Earth” advocate Henry Morris would argue against this dating. But again, Grudem asks “Would not the hundreds of Christians who are professional geologists be prepared to acknowledge the evidence (of Morris) if it were there?” Grudem acknowledges this is not the case. I personally believe in the “Young Earth” view, but not because of alleged scientific evidence.

The “Old Earth” view also has problems scientifically. Just as Grudem honestly evaluated the scientific weaknesses of the “Young Earth” position, he also points out the flaws of “Old Earth” conclusions. For example: “The interpretations of Genesis 1 presented by old earth advocates, while possible, do not seem natural to the sense of the text. Davis Young’s own solution of ‘seven successive figurative days of indeterminate duration’ really does not solve the problem, for he is willing to spread God’s creative activities around on the various days as needed in order to make the sequence scientifically possible. For example, he thinks that some birds were created before Day 5” (page 307). Grudem, who holds strongly to no view on the age of the earth, points out the fallacy of science in the hermeneutic process.

What are evidences from the text of Genesis one and two on the age of the earth?

“Old Earth” supporters say the word “day” is used of long periods of time in Scripture and so “day” must have that meaning in Genesis one and thus there must be an “Old Earth.” The word “day” (yom) in Genesis one and other Scriptures with a numerical designation (“the first day”) means a 24 hour day. Yom in Genesis 2:4 or 2:27 and other usages such as “the day of the Lord” does not have the qualifying nomenclature and is not limited to a 24 hour day. The numerical designation with “day” and the context of Genesis one demand a “Young Earth.”

You cannot say that the narrative genre of Genesis one and two is Hebrew Poetry, as “Old Earth” advocates contend, just because there is the literary convention of “repetition” and therefore cannot be interpreted literally. All genres in Scripture use repetition to stress important words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. See the repetition or inclusio in 1 Sam 2:10 and 2 Sam 22:51 of the important words “king” and “anointed” that bookend these books on the rise of the monarchy in Israel. Neither is the use of symbolic language limited to Hebrew Poetry. The dominant literary technique of Hebrew Poetry is tight parallelism in each verse. This unique literary devise is not in Genesis one. Genesis one and two are narratives giving the factual account of creation in six 24 hour days. Psalm 104 is the poetic version of the six days of creation. Genesis one and Psalm 104 are completely different literarily. Psalm 104 has the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew Poetry that is absent in the narrative of Genesis one.

God’s interpretation of the days of creation is clear in Exodus 20:9-11 in regard to the fourth commandment: “Six days (24 hour days) you may labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work….For in six days (24 hour days) the Lord made the heavens…and he rested on the seventh.” Our interpretation of Scripture should not be based on what science has observed but on certain hermeneutic principles which applied to Genesis one produces the interpretation of a “Young Earth.”

Apparently, David read Genesis one and two and saw in this historical account of creation the greatness of God. In worship of his awesome Creator, David poetically gave vent to the praise in his heart in Psalm 104 for God’s six days of creation. For example, verse one is the poetic equivalent of Genesis 1:1: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with honor and majesty.” Since we can not see God who is spirit, we can observe what He has robed Himself in, His creation, and worship His almighty power that spoke the universe into existence. That same power made us a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) in Christ when we trusted Christ as our Savior. “Bless the Lord, O my soul.”

Review of Chapter Six “Science Has Disproved Christianity” in The Reason For God.

Posted: January 10, 2009 in Book Reviews, Creation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Tim Keller rejects the view of Richard Dawkins who “argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.” But Keller believes the view of a six twenty-four-hour day creation is “fortunately…losing credibility with a growing number of scholars.” In both Dawkins’ and Keller’s view, science has undermined the interpretation of Scripture. Keller even says, “There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith.” Keller repudiates the literal interpretation of Genesis one and two in order to believe in theistic evolution: “it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be.” The theologians who hold to the different forms of theistic evolution contradict themselves in rejecting the creation of the universe in six twenty-four-hour days in order to accommodate the science of atheistic evolution.

The reigning Baptist theologian from the late 1800’s to Millard Erickson was Augustus Strong. He was a staunch conservative for the fundamentals of the faith. Strong, however, had his problems. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture nor in a six twenty-four day creation.

Millard Erickson, who replaced Strong as the reigning Baptist theologian, is a progressive creationist. Both Strong and Erickson believe God used the process of evolution to varying degrees. Strong believed that God used evolution to a greater degree than Erickson: “Evolution is only the method of God.” In Strong’s view, evolution brought brute beast to a certain development and then God miraculously intervened and created a soul in Adam, the first man. “We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s ‘breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man” (Systematic Theology, pages 466-467).  So, according to Strong, evolution provided the body and God the soul.

  

As a progressive creationist, Erickson, believes that “between these special acts of creation, development took place through the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God created the first member of the horse family.” In regard to man, unlike theistic evolutionists, Erickson believes that “when the time came for man to be brought into existence, God made him directly and completely, God did not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God.” 

  

Erickson argues against the theistic evolutionary view that the “dust” of Gen. 2:7 cannot be literal dust but must be symbolic for already existing creatures. Here is how Strong explains “dust” in Gen. 2:7: “The ‘dust’ before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust” (page 465). Also from other statements of Strong the dust must have been evolved animals before God breathed into them and the animal became the first man. Erickson presents a good argument against this allegorical interpretation of Scripture. “The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the reference to dust in 3:19 (the clearer) interpret that in 2:7 (the less clear)” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 483).

        

And yet, Erickson does not hold to a literal interpretation of “dust.” “The Bible tells us that God made man from the ‘dust’ of the ground. This dust need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial representation which was intelligible to the first readers” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 482). To use Erickson’s logic against theistic evolution’s rejection of the literal meaning of “dust” then at death we do not return to actual physical soil but to some pictorial representation of death. Why cannot we just read the Word of God in the normal sense of language and except what it says? It is this refusal to take God’s Word at face value that has led to theistic evolution, progressive creationism and the age/day theory.

        

Gleason Archer, who believes in theistic evolution, in his discussion of Genesis has a section entitled Genesis 1 and Modern Scientific Evidence. In this section, he writes “From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 181). Just because modern science contradicts the plain sense of Scripture, the literal interpretation of God’s Word is abandoned.       

                

Science at times has been wrong, as Wayne Grudem reminds us: “For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun (following the theories of the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1472-1543), he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church….Galileo was forced to recant his teachings and had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life” (Systematic Theology, page 273).

        

Ken Ham, who is with Answers in Genesis, in a taped lecture, tells about two Sunday school girls who were discussing the six days of creation and one asked the other, “Why did God take so long?” How would you answer that Sunday schooler? Six days were a long time for our all powerful God of the universe to create everything. Could not God have created the universe in six seconds, or six minutes, or in six hours? Why did God take six days? The answer is in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18. These two passages argue for six literal 24 hours days of creation and not ages. Just as God took six literal solar days to create the universe and then rested on the seventh, he has commanded us to labor six days and rest one. If God interprets Genesis one and two literally, why cannot we?