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 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
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
During an October 28 meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Vatican, Pope Francis said, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” according to The Telegraph. He also asserted that the Big Bang “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it.”1 If the Pope says it’s okay for Catholics to embrace the Big Bang and evolution, does that settle the controversy?
Those who simply take the Pope’s words as authoritative may find no reason to doubt his recent assertions, but attempts to square Pope Francis’ statements with science or the Bible will encounter some serious red flags. 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 →
My short presentation tonight is titled, “A personal story from a Millennial.” Ironically, as I wrote this speech, an article popped up on my news feed by Relevant Magazine called, “15 books Every Christian Millennial Has Owned.” Initially, I was offended at being stereotyped, and then I read the article and realized I owned every single one of the books. Christian Millennials are a much more diverse bunch than we are given credit for, but I have found that there is a shocking amount of consistency in our experiences–especially among those who grew up in the golden years of conservative Evangelicalism. While my Millennial friends have landed all over the religious landscape, not one of them thinks that we can ever go back to the simpler world of VeggieTales Christianity. What we need is a way forward.
I say all this to frame my own story as a Millennial, because I hope my own journey can help others realize that the way forward for the evangelical church is not only possible but deeply exciting and interesting. 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 →
The character of Christianity depends, in profound ways, on one’s beliefs concerning creation. For the first 250 years of the existence of the church in America, Christians assumed the truth of the doctrine of creation. It was revealed in the Bible and it made the most sense of the natural world. When large numbers of Christians rejected the doctrine in the 20th century, the results were astonishing.
The New England Puritans expressed their belief in creation in the confession of faith adopted in 1648 as part of the Cambridge Platform Continue reading