Tuesday, September 18, 2012

But So Many Scientists Believe Evolution!

Source unknown, found on Facebook, click for larger 
Two "arguments" have the same problem. First, "Most scientists believe evolution". Second, "Most modern Christians do not accept the first eleven chapters of Genesis as actual history". Those are the ad populum fallacy, where people will accept something as true because many people believe it. In addition, we also have the appeal to authority fallacy ("scientists believe"). While it is valid to cite an authority on a topic, people make mistakes. Especially when appealing to authority and majority instead of using reason.

Still, it is puzzling. So many people believe something that is contrary to God's Word. Why is that? Well, why do you think? "Science" is practically worshiped by many people, and is used as an excuse to ignore or even replace God. If scientists say something, well, we had better accept what they say, yes? No. For one thing, scientific conclusions, procedures and so forth "proving" an ancient Earth and evolution are not undisputed, even within the secular scientific community. Thanks to publicity, however, people are deceived into thinking that everything is "case closed". And so many people compromise their theology with the ever-changing whims of man-made "science". Why?
What better place to teach geology than the Grand Canyon? Exposed there is a large slice through the rock record of a major part of earth history. Every year we take groups through the Grand Canyon, and people see in-depth the compelling evidence for the global, cataclysmic Genesis Flood.

Overwhelmed by this evidence, a common response is: “How could most scientists be wrong about its formation?” If the evidence for the catastrophic accumulation of the rock record and its contained fossils in only a year or so, rather than over millions of years, is so compelling, why don’t all geologists accept the evidence and agree that the biblical Flood accounts for the rock and fossil records?

Such questions demonstrate that most people do not understand how geologists deal with the rock and fossil evidence. The only facts are that the rocks and fossils are observed in layers. They can be measured and tested repeatedly in the present.

When it comes to explaining how the rocks and fossils formed, however, those are events that occurred in the past. They can’t be repeated and observed. Thus, explanations about how rocks and fossils formed in the past are interpretations, not facts.
I think you'll want to read the rest of "How Could Most Scientists Be Wrong?", here.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Saturday Resource - Refuting Compromise (Video)

Although it is just over an hour, this video is well worth your time. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati shows how proponents of an old Earth are using the same atheistic interpretations of scientific facts. Worse, he shows how compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos are on terrible theological ground. The real question is about biblical authority versus man's opinions. Let him explain. NOTE: Skip ahead to the seven minute mark to where he actually begins talking.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Reinterpretation and Other Old-Earth Compromise Efforts

It constantly baffles me why some Christians insist that the Bible does not mean what it says back in Genesis. Some blatant compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos can be seen as dangerous to the gospel. It is disheartening when a respected philosopher like William Lane Craig actually mocks biblical creationists. When people I respect, like Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason", keep making efforts to say that Genesis does not mean what it says (as he did in his radio show on September 2, 2012, at about the 1 hour 10 minute mark), it is discouraging. Especially when I know that Koukl has a great deal of worthwhile material!

As I have said before, we are sending people a mixed message:

The Bible is true, and contains what we need for salvation and a godly life, it means what it says. You don't need to be told what to think, have a "Watchtower" magazine or Book of Mormon. Except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Then, we have to go with the current trends of modern science philosophies; do not go with the plain reading of the text, nononono!

But many of us do believe what the Bible says. We do not need the ever-changing whims of science philosophies to tell us what it means. Why the compromise? Why the insistence on eisegesis, forcing "deep time" into the Bible? What is the purpose of using atheistic interpretations of scientific data? If people want to let "science" tell us what we should believe, why stop at Genesis? "Science" also says that water is not turned into wine, virgins do not conceive a child from the Holy Spirit, men do not rise from the dead... Compromise begets more compromise.

Here is an article about theological tap-dancing and reinterpretations of the text that old-Earth people commit.
Since the rise of uniformitarian geology in about 1800, many in the church have capitulated to this new ‘science’. Thus they have rejected the traditional plain historical-grammatical interpretation of the creation and Flood accounts. They routinely resort to erroneous reasoning to support their compromising reinterpretation. Following are discussions of the three most common errors committed.
I urge you to read the rest of "Common errors made by deniers of a young Earth", here.