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 "Liked", shared (or "retweeted"), commented upon — and I found out later that the links were wrong. They were not even trying to read the material! Nice to spend hours on a post and have false appreciation.
• Don't be disunderstanding me here. Not everything is for everyone, and we present a variety of subjects.
• Whiners complaining about having to click: once to the site, then another for the featured article(s). Plenty of time to scroll and click on other things, though.
• Distressed over the bitter divorce between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. (This gives atheopaths reason for ridicule.) For the most part, each acts like the other doesn't exist. They can't even link to each other's articles. I thought we were on the same team. They even went to court (1 Cor. 6:1-8). From my viewpoint as a thinking Christian, they have given the body of Christ a black eye. I've prayed, not for reunification, but reconciliation.
• Similarly, there are some creationist organizations that act like they are the only ones spreading the message. Actually, one I'm thinking of is acting a bit cult-like. If they get more pronounced, I'll be sounding the alarm — along with others who are undoubtedly watching them.
• A guy who has a small creation science ministry said that he had been wronged by one of the big ones. Wanting to be a peacemaker, I contacted the organization. He was furious at me, demand that I apologize (for following my conscience and biblical teachings?), attacked my character and integrity. To his credit, he did not malign me publicly.
• There have been creationists, pastors, and Christians who have broken their promises and even lied to me.
• Lazy Christians. It is not possible to grow in the faith without spending time in the Word and under solid biblical teaching, and if someone tries to defend creation science to a misotheist who has learned the canned responses, they atheist will clean the Christian's clock.
• Dr. Jerry Bergman is a Christian and biblical creationist, but spends more time pushing Intelligent Design than standing up for biblical truth. Indeed, he seems embarrassed by Scripture, and often makes no mention of creation science, such as in this article. His apologetics methods are lacking, and I've seen him get verbally slapped around in a debate with an atheist that was full of fallacies and nonsense.
• I tried to make the tenth annual Question Evolution Day the biggest event we've had yet, but the aforementioned lies, broken promises as well as apathy on the part of alleged supporters made it a dismal failure. People expressed interest, but there were no signs of posts, shares, #hashtags, and such. That hurt, and I'm not going to make so much effort in the future.

Again, I've been hurt many times by Christians and creationists. I have almost quit doing this entirely. (It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood my calling; perhaps God wanted me to sell used cars in Cleveland, not creation science activities.)  There are no "mountains of evidence" for evolution, lack of compelling evidence for our side, nor because of "arguments" from professing atheists to make me stop. It's a great time to be a creationist. The main reason I almost quit is because of professing Christians.

Why am I still doing this? I believe I'm being obedient to the Lord, and mayhaps this cowboy might say something or point to something that will impact a few people. As I've said before (and keep reminding myself), I seek glory to God, not glory to Bob. I don't think of myself as any kind of hero.

Not everything is for everybody, and creation science ministries present information on a variety of topics. Some stuff is not popular. We get that. Also, I'm thankful for the people who do appreciate our efforts.

Keathley Misrepresents YEC

Ken had disappointments, but he also made several statements that were simply untrue. Yes, there were faulty models and arguments for young earth creation. Those were replaced with better material after further scrutiny. Yes, we presuppose the truth of the Bible. No, the book The Genesis Flood was not supposed to be purely empirical; it was a starting point for further research. Yes, like other scientists, creationists have disagreements on details, such as where the Flood inundation stage ended and the recession began. We're not in lockstep.

As a bit of an aside, we urge YECs to avoid identifying themselves as YECs. This is a bit of a newer development. There is a connotation that we first believe the earth is young, then force Scripture into it. Rather, we are biblical creationists because we adhere to biblical authority.

When examining Keathley's claims, we see that they are seriously erroneous and misleading. He saddled up to ride for the old earth brand, and something old earthers (including theistic evolutionists) have a problem with is biblical authority. I don't reckon he was given a medal.

Greatly influenced by the Whitcomb and Morris classic The Genesis Flood, theologian Ken Keathley once upheld, defended and promoted the young-earth/global flood position. Due to a number of 'disappointments' with the young-earth creationist community he has recently moved to a position of compromise. Keathley’s presentation provides young-earth creationists with the opportunity to determine if such disappointments are warranted, to evaluate potential motives for compromise, and to address the importance of biblical authority. Finally it will be shown that his basis for determining whether or not to accept the plain reading of Genesis is flawed from the outset.

To read the rest of that article (which has relevance beyond Keathley), click on "A theologian’s disappointing departure from biblical creation" for the PDF. There's more to discuss below.

The essay linked above was written in 2014. In 2016, that sidewinder wrote on his weblog that Ken Ham embraces evolution. Ham and other knowledgeable biblical creationists believe in speciation. Keathley was doing the equivocation fallacy, the ol' bait 'n' switch, because speciation is most definitely not evolution.

He took a lot of heat for his remarks, and I was pleased to see people from CMI and others taking him to task in the comments. I wrote an article that linked to several responses to this hit piece. Keathley has since taken his down, but the archived copy still exists. His weblog, "Theology for the Church" (a more accurate name would be "Owlhoots that Compromise and Deceive") has been dormant since late 2018 as of this writing.

Listen, I don't care about Ken Keathley and his foolishness, and I don't expect any of y'all to care either. The purpose of this here article is to point out that people compromise on biblical authority, and then they slide further. They take their eyes off Jesus, get discouraged by sinful Christians, continue in their compromise, justify themselves — and we have seen how professing Christians can become apostates. In face, I've read or heard old earthers that have actually lied about biblical creationists. Who do they serve, really?