This article was also published at SBC Voices
by Ken Hamrick
Recently, I came across a paper in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, written by Dr. Kenneth Keathley in 2013, entitled, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther.” The piece is well done and gives an informative summary of the various arguments and supposed problems of the Young-Earth Creationism movement. After reading it, I must say that I’m just as disappointed as Dr. Keathley, but for different reasons. I’m disappointed that the enemy, who is delegitimizing the truth-claims of Christianity by undermining the authority of Scripture, is often met with so little resistance and so much well-meant, reasonable-sounding cooperation. I’m disappointed that not even the best among us are immune from a skeptical evidentialism. And I’m disappointed that one so capable of competent reason would falter in thinking that evidence has bearing on the question of a recent miraculous creation.
I’m no scientist, and I do not claim to be able to present all the scientific intricacies of the various arguments. To be fair, there do seem to be some valid points brought against Young-Earth “creation science” and even a few points in support of it. Nevertheless, I do not argue for a “young” earth, but for an old earth recently created—what Dr. Keathley presents as Philip Henry Gosse’s “Omphalos argument” or the mature earth view. The Bible clearly and explicitly reveals a recent creation by divine fiat. Miracles being what they are, we should not expect to find proof in physical evidences for this recent miraculous act. But, neither should we expect the secular scientific view to be free from error, overconfidence, and overreaching. Ultimately, though, the scientific argument is irrelevant to the vital question at hand—and that fact is sadly missed by Young-Earthers and Old-Earthers alike. Continue reading
by Jim Pemberton
A couple of weeks ago Justin Taylor posted an article entitled “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods”. Since that time, many have posted articles refuting Justin’s arguments. In this article I will post links to some of the ones I know about and make a couple of observations myself.
First, let me start off by saying that in general I respect Justin. He’s a well-reasoned man of good character and genuinely strives for biblical accuracy. I just think he missed the mark on this one. Nevertheless, his article seems to have given many of us the incentive to hash this issue out. Continue reading
by Ken Hamrick
In the ongoing debate over the Genesis creation account, one supposed problem that seems particularly troublesome for many is the question of the length of a day prior to the creation of the sun (on Day 4). Since the sun is the means by which a day is usually measured, then it is objected by Old-Earthers that we are left without any sure understanding of what God might possibly mean by the term, “day,” when it is used to describe the first three days of creation. Here’s the text:
Genesis 1 ESV
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Continue reading
by Ken Hamrick
Old-Earth Creationists, who accept the evidence-based claims that the earth is billions of years old, ought to honestly acknowledge that their view does not rest on natural evidence, but upon their own prior skeptical denial of creation by divine fiat (or, command). It is dishonest to put forth such a view as being based on the evidence. Without first denying that a miraculous creation by fiat might have occurred, they would have no basis for giving weight to any natural evidence. This doesn’t mean that they have properly thought this out and realized that they must first deny the plausibility of a miraculous creation by fiat; rather, for most of them, their preconceived skeptical denial remains unrecognized, like a hidden assumption.
To answer the question, How long ago did God create the world?, they immediately look—as a matter of course—to what the scientific evidence ‘reveals.’ Ostensibly, this supposes to give equal weight to all sources of truth, whether God’s revelation in Scripture or God’s revelation in the physical world (nature). However, the bias of the scales toward nature becomes evident: whenever the two (the plain reading of Scripture and natural evidence) seem to contradict, they never opt for reinterpreting natural evidence in light of the inerrant Scripture, but always insist on reinterpreting Scripture in light of the inerrant natural evidence (at least where creation is concerned). Continue reading
The creation account of Gen 1 ends with the declaration, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31 ESV). The key issue boils down to what is meant by the expression “very good.” Old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists agree that this is the issue about which they have the most disagreement. More than the proper interpretation of Gen 1-3, the age of the earth, or even the theory of evolution, this is the question that stands above all others: Did animals die before Adam and Eve fell in the Garden?
The fossil record presents us with a troubling past. It reveals a history of predation, disease, and intrinsic selfishness. The problem of immense suffering in the natural world was not lost on Darwin. Continue reading →
by Dr. Terry Mortenson on December 22, 2014
Recently, Dr. Jonathan Hill, professor of sociology at Calvin College, published on the BioLogos website the results of his national survey of 3,000 American adults to study the beliefs of Americans on issues related to human origins. The summary of his research is entitled “The Recipe for Creationism.”1 His research was done to see if previous surveys done by Gallup and others over the past few decades were giving us an accurate picture of what Americans believe.
Those other studies, the most recent published by Gallup in June 2014, have indicated consistently over the past 30 years that
- about 45% of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,”
- about 35% believe that “human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process,”
- about 20% believe that “human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life but God had no part in this process.”2
Those statistics are challenged by Hill’s new research.
Let me say at the outset of my analysis that Dr. Hill and the other people associated with BioLogos are undoubtedly kind and sincere Christians. Continue reading →
by Mike Matthews […]
Within the first three minutes of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, it was obvious how radically the creation-evolution debate has changed since the 1970s and 1980s.
When Bill Nye “the Science Guy” quipped that creationism is not appropriate for children, the video went viral on YouTube. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, fired back a response, and the debate was on.
Eventually, a formal debate was announced, to be live streamed. The tickets for a seat at the event sold out within two minutes. On the day of the debate, millions of people linked in, and it became the top Twitter and Facebook trend of the day.
How times have changed!
During the heyday of creation-evolution debates in the 1970s and 1980s, none of this technology existed. The audiences attended brick-and-mortar buildings, or a few lucky people could tune into a local TV station.
Now anyone can join the debate live, and once it’s over, they can replay the whole thing at their convenience. Information is at our fingertips, instantly available in HD video.
More than technology has changed. The audience has changed, and so has our message. It’s no longer possible for Christians to assume common ground regarding the Bible and science. Continue reading →
Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of biological evolution. But his famous work, The Origin of Species, certainly gave impetus to an idea that would quickly become orthodoxy in the scientific establishment. In his work he made several significant points that have had profound consequences for how scientists understand the natural world. Darwin did not merely suggest that change takes place over time, which, technically speaking, may be called evolution (though many would prefer to use the word “adaptation,” as opposed to “evolution,” to describe changes within a given species). Rather, he questioned the concept that species are immutable (i.e., cannot change). Continue reading →
by Ken Hamrick
Apologist J. W. Wartick recently posted an article on his blog, entitled, “Do Young Earth Creationists Advocate Appearance of Age?” He is an Old-Earth Creationist who argues that appearance of age would be deception on God’s part. I disagree, and have been engaging him in discussion in the comment section. You might find it interesting, and you’re welcome to join the conversion.
by Ken Hamrick
When it comes to understanding the Bible, the intended meaning of the author ought to be held in such importance that the text is allowed to speak for itself—with every effort made to not read into the text ideas that were not intended—and to get our clues as to what was intended only from the text itself, rather than permitting ideas, claims, evidences and authorities from outside of the text to tell us what the text means. This is why we go by the axiom, If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. When it tells us that Christ physically rose from the dead and left the tomb, we don’t allow science to weigh in and tell us that He must not have actually died, but only “swooned,” since dead bodies do not reanimate (CPR might work for a few minutes, but not three days after death). Certainly, science has a legitimate stake in the matter, since what is claimed is above and beyond all natural laws and a physical impossibility. Nevertheless, science must be ignored in this, since it is a supernatural matter outside of their ability to explain, detect, or prove. For us today, it is a matter of pure revelation—the eyewitnesses are dead and unavailable for examination. Continue reading
A physicist and an astrobiologist team up to explain to medical doctors how knowledge of evolution holds the key to curing cancer.
Scientific American: Did Cancer Evolve to Protect Us?
Curing cancer is high on everyone’s wish list for the 21st century. Could the key be billions of year’s old? A National Cancer Institute project to “rethink cancer from the bottom up” has spawned a study asserting that oncologists need to seek the cancer cures for the present in clues from the evolutionary past.
Physicist Paul Davies and astrobiologist Charles Lineweaver believe that cancer cells are simply cells that have reverted to their evolutionary ancestral state to cope with the challenges they face. This is called an “atavistic” model. (Atavism means reversion to an ancient, primitive, or ancestral state. Continue reading →
Pope Francis is not the first religious leader who has endorsed evolution and the big bang, but he is certainly one of the most influential.
Following in the tradition of other recent popes, Pope Francis has compromised biblical authority in favor of man’s ideas in the area of origins. He said, “The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it. Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.”
About the account of creation in Genesis, the pope stated, “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so . . . Continue reading →
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
John Coleman, award-winning meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel, has long been an outspoken skeptic of man-made global warming. He recently claimed that the idea that humans are changing the climate via increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is “nothing but a lie.”1 His remarks are just the latest salvo in this long-running debate.
Creation scientists have generally been quite cautious in their approach to this controversial issue, wanting to examine the data honestly and objectively. Continue reading →
These are exciting times at AiG. The life-size Noah’s Ark project is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. This past week, the board of directors met at Answers in Genesis. They were given a detailed update on the Ark Encounter project, to be built off I-75 (between Cincinnati and Lexington, Kentucky). Because of the intense construction activity on the Ark site, the board members were taken on a helicopter tour of the Ark property to see the progress.
I have included a video below […] Continue reading →
Earlier this month, Bill Nye (TV’s famous “Science Guy”) appeared on Global News’s The Morning Show on October 1, 2014 and, speaking about people who believe in biblical creation, boldly predicted that “In another 20 years those guys will be just about out of business.” Other secularists (I recall some back in the 1970s) have made similar claims, like this one: “Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization . . . Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph.”* Will biblical creation be dead in 20 years? Will secularists be successful in stamping out the message of the true history of the world and replacing it with atheism? In a word—no. Biblical creation is going to outlive Bill Nye and others like him. Continue reading →
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Dr. Georgia Purdom, and Dr. Tommy Mitchell on October 20, 2014
The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has already claimed over 4,000 lives—more than all previous Ebola epidemics combined—and it is showing no sign of slowing. The first (and we hope the only) Ebola death on American soil occurred in Dallas, Texas, on October 8, 2014. Two nurses who cared for that patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, soon developed Ebola. In Spain a nurse exposed in Madrid to a priest who contracted Ebola in Africa recently developed Ebola.1 These incidents represent the first time Ebola has been transmitted outside of Africa.
In the past, outbreaks have remained geographically confined to the regions where the organism that harbors them lives.2 Why is this one different? Is Ebola wielding the power of Darwinian evolution over medical science? Continue reading →
According to a science and religion blogger with the not-so-reliable Huffington Post, the evolution/creation debate is not about science or even the Bible—it’s about gay marriage! Well, that’s certainly news to me!
Writer Paul Wallace claims that he could never understand why creationists reject the “tsunami of unambiguous evidence that forces us to believe in a 14-billion-year-old cosmos; in a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth; and in the long slow evolution of creatures.” Of course, he doesn’t provide any of the scientific evidence that supposedly makes up this “tsunami of unambiguous evidence,” he just merely expects his readers to accept that this evidence is there. He then goes on to say that he suddenly realized why biblical creationists reject all the supposed “evidence”—it’s because the real issue is not science, it’s gay marriage. Continue reading →
I have been invited to dinner. BioLogos published an article this week with the following headline: Ken Ham, We Need a Better Conversation (Perhaps Over Dinner?)
But should I go to this proposed dinner?
Dr. Deborah Haarsma, president of the theistic evolution organization BioLogos, was responding to my recent blog about statements made by Dr. Hugh Ross (known for aggressively disseminating a compromise view of Genesis called progressive creation) on a Canadian talk show, where he was discussing his new book. (AiG writer/researcher Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell also published a review of Hugh Ross’s new book on our website.) Continue reading →
Two weeks ago I attended a “Celebrating Creation” conference hosted by the BioLogos Foundation. As many readers know, BioLogos is an organization of evangelicals who accept theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism, EC, as many prefer to call it). Evangelicals hold to a wide range of views concerning creation and evolution, and I’ve had the privilege of engaging with a number of groups representing positions across the spectrum, including intelligent design proponents (ID) and old-earth creationists (OEC). Similarly, I’ll always be grateful to Answers in Genesis (a young-earth creationists organization, YEC) for the opportunity a few years back to float down the Grand Canyon on an eight-day rafting tour and hear them present the case for the young-earth view. Personally, I hold to old-earth creationism. I affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve and believe the original couple were the special creation of God. When the invitation came from BioLogos to attend this event, I was glad to take part. I’m thankful to Debra Haarsma, Jeff Schloss, and Jim Stump of Biologos for the opportunity. Here are a few of my takeaway thoughts.
1. BioLogos deserves a place at the table, taking part in the conversation. Continue reading →
by Dr. Andrew Fabich on October 13, 2014
Several months ago, friends of mine were planning a trip to Liberia. They were just about to head over when they got the news that there was an Ebola outbreak. At the time, they contacted me to find out just how safe or unsafe it was in Liberia. They knew more about what to expect on the trip to Liberia, but they were unsure of what to expect in terms of Ebola infecting as many people as it had. At the time, the death toll was in the hundreds (recent estimates suggest that the death toll is over 4,000).1 I began trying to help them understand a few things about Ebola so they could make an informed decision. Since that time, I have noticed a number of websites have arisen with misinformation and sensationalism that misleads the public about how severe a threat Ebola is. Continue reading →