Skip to main content

Matt Walsh and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited about 22 hours after initial posting.

Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as "It's Not My Fault!"). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science.


Matt Walsh has been attacking creation science, but does not use logic in his reactions.
Credit: Freeimages / Robb Kiser
Matt seems like the kind of guy that I could hang out with, and we could have some interesting discussions. Unfortunately, he is a staunch defender of Roman Catholicism and has weak theological foundations. When he threw down on creation science, I posted a couple of articles at The Question Evolution Project. The first one was by Peter Heck, "Why Matt Walsh is Dangerously Wrong About Genesis". Later, I posted an article by Paul Price at Creation Ministries International, "Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism". 

Later, I did not read an article by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, but still attempted to engage Walsh (again) on Twitter:


Walsh is upset, and his bad reasoning and personal attacks have been exposed.
Click for larger
For some reason, he really got upset about the Ken Ham response and made a video. Interesting that he ignored other articles refuting his positions. Regular readers know that creationists encourage critical thinking, and I encourage people to develop skills at spotting informal logical fallacies. Walsh reacted in the same way as atheists, liberal Christians, and other anti-creationists when dealing with biblical creation science. He used prejudicial conjecture (using words without knowledge because he did not research the subject), ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and more. He also called Ham a liar. 

If you call someone a liar but do not show valid reasons for the accusation, you are the liar, old son. 

Such attitudes and actions are like those of a certain misotheist who hates Ken with a passion, and assumes Ham is lying. Evidence? In his mind, Ken Ham is a liar and the misotheist is right because he hates Ken (makes perfect sense). His proof is by using the fallacy of repeated assertion, but all he does is display his bigotry. I doubt that Walsh would be interested in the support of someone who called God a liar and is logic impaired. By the way, he also ignored the other creationist articles refuting Matt, but seems to seek relevance by attacking Ham. In fact, Walsh called Ham a liar and demanded an apology for things that were never said, and Walsh owes Ham an apology!

It is interesting that Matt Walsh acts just like Bill Nye in many ways. Both have singled out Ken Ham, as if he was the only creationist out there, and act like he is leading an anti-science cult. In fact, there are thousands who are also riding for the creation brand. Many times, creation science has caused secular scientists to realize that their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions are loaded with error. F'rinstance, creationist research on the human-chimp DNA fiasco brought down a long-standing evolutionary falsehood.

Whether in debates or criticism, it is essential to do some reading on the subjects under discussion and to avoid misrepresenting the other side. Walsh, Nye, and that other guy need to learn that attacking the person does not prove that their own positions are correct, you savvy?

We can pray that these folks have their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit, that they humble themselves, and repent. Until then, we can use their attacks for instruction and to warn others about how rejecting God's Word affects the mind. As creationists, we not only emphasize the foundational aspect of Scripture beginning with the very first verse, but also its authority as well. 

Now I'm going to bring you to the most recent response to Matt Walsh by Ken Ham and others at Answers in Genesis. To read it an watch the video, click on "Responding to Matt Walsh on Young-Earth Creation".



Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ — "I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood". No. Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software , Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Cimerondagert  ( CC by-SA 4.0 ) An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word tha