Think On These Things - Creation Evangelism

I was born for battle

Fri, 01 May 2009 09:19:00 -0700

I really don't need to share my faith anymore by way of telling people that I'm a follower of Christ, because after you inform one person in your circle of influence that you believe the earth isn't much more than six thousand years old, word spreads like wildfire.The results have opened doors, and has been tremendous. My work lies much less in that initial sharing and more on earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3:3) by always having an answer for someone who asks me about my beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).

A friend of mine, we'll call him Steve for the sake of anonymity, though his real name is Jack, loves to send me "scientific" information about evolution and millions of years, mainly to get my reaction. Jack won't tell me what his beliefs are per se, as I guess that is part of the fun. Such conversations make for some lively debate, most of which is worthy of sharing beyond those who are "cc'd" on the emails by which we correspond. Below, I am replying to Jack in response to his earlier comments about evolution being proven true, how many Christians embrace evolution (and so should I). My comments are in green; his in blue.

Jack,

Thank you for your email. My responses are in green below.

I also want to say to you, as one whom I respect and consider a friend that, my occasional “tweaking” aside, I certainly never have any intent to mock or belittle your religious beliefs,

"Religion" is one of those funny words, so let me clarify. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, through whom one must be saved. “Religion” is a list of man-made rules and regulations, and it is a word that the Bible frowns upon in its every reference. Such religions can shut man off from the light of the gospel by which alone one can be saved (2 Cor 4:3-4).

…and fully understand your perspective and the impassioned sense of importance hold to it.

I think that the only way you could fully understand my “impassioned sense” of leading people to Christ is to share it. To those who do not have the Holy Spirit indwelt in them, and who are not led by the Holy Spirit, my preaching is foolishness. (1 Cor 1:21)

In most cases in the past, I have backed down merely because I sincerely do not wish to offend or upset.

You don't have to worry about offending me. (Eph 6:12)

I do however shake my head in perplexity at the ongoing assault upon science in our schools and nation especially in light of all that has been discovered – a feeling with which you would likely agree with me in principle, though arriving at very different conclusions.

If it’s any consolation, you should be encouraged by one of President Obama’s goals, which is to put science “back in its rightful place.” When combined with the his other thoughts on the matter, one could interpret his statements this way: "We will continue to fight against any questioning of evolution in the classroom in the name of 'science.'" This popular, yet unfair, defense tactic for evolutionists inhibits critical thinking. As Dr. Russell Humphreys points out, “once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war”. But why worry in the first place? While the U.S. schools consistently rank among the lowest (if not the lowest) in educational rankings among developed countries, we rank 1^st in self esteem.

However, obtaining a PhD does not preclude one from being a quack or minister of pseudoscience.

I think you’ve just proved my point. Why are so many PhD’s also ministers of the pseudoscience of evolution – something that has no basis in real science? Is evolution a “fact” like gravity? Has anyone seen it happen? Can anyone reproduce it in a lab? Can life be reproduced in a lab? No. Sadly, even (and perhaps especially) for PhDs, the power of presupposition and peer pressure (as well as spiritual blindness) outweighs the power of logic, so much that “following the evidence wherever it may lead” is one road they won't go down. So much of their work relies upon peer review and approval, and they respect and thrive on the old adage that the squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced.

Evolutionism is a belief system based on an interpretation of the what happened in the past. Creationism is also a belief system based on an interpretation of the past. Only one can be right, but which one fits the evidence best? For example, evolutionists claim victory because “they have the fossils.” Yet all scientists have the same fossils, and what do they really tell us? One such fossil is of a T Rex femur with soft, pliable red blood cell tissue in it, clearly something that cannot be preserved if the bone is millions of years old, and yet an evolutionist must interpret it as millions of years old, because they adhere to the belief that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. I, on the other hand, have no problem with this discovery, because it is likely this dinosaur died out during the catastrophic Flood that destroyed the earth 4500 years ago.

As another example, diamonds are supposed to be the product of millions of years. Yet diamonds have radiocarbon in them. How could this be? They shouldn’t have any radiocarbon whatsoever if the diamonds are indeed millions of years old. So evolutionists must come up with an unscientific “just-so” story for the existence of the radiocarbon, because they hold to the belief that the earth is millions of years old. Yet the discovery fits in quite well with my belief system.

And the list goes on and on. The bios of PhDs who have broken free for the religion of evolutionism are replete with a sense of liberation and thankfulness that they saw through the lies of evolutionism. Consider the facts, and you may sense this too.

I would put far more weight in the fact that such an individual [a PhD, in this case, Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian evangelist] is being honest in his conclusions of empirical evidence, rather than attempting to push any particular sort of agenda or belief.

As I am trying to demonstrate, there is no such thing as objectivity. Dr. Collins’ presupposition is that the earth is millions of years old. Therefore, he interprets facts based on that belief. If his presuppositions changed, and his paradigm shifted, he would have to reinterpret the facts, as I have.

Here is the rest of the quote from Dr. Francis Collins:

“But why couldn't this [millions of years of time and death] be God's plan for creation?..."

Well, I suppose it could be, if you dismissed the original language and the process by which the Bible is read and interpreted, and replaced it with, say, the “DFC Version.” However, any Hebrew scholar would tell you that Genesis 1-2 can only be interpreted one way – a literal 6 days.

"…True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis,"

Is Dr. Francis Collins a PhD in Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation as well? Maybe he isn’t qualified…

"…So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence …"

Please, someone, show me this compelling scientific evidence. I have looked and I can’t find it. From my point of view, based on the evidence I’ve seen, evolution has only hindered scientific advancements and discoveries and restricted critical thinking.

"…pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.”

It is both wise and necessary to believe in a young earth. Not necessary for salvation (John 3:16), of course, but necessary to understand and fully appreciate why Jesus came to die.

And one from St. Augustine just for fun. I know you don’t hold much esteem for Catholics, but St. Augustine is often quoted by both Protestant and Catholic, so I figure its fair game:

Actually, it’s not Catholics that I do not hold much esteem for, but rather for Catholocism, and I pray for many of her followers.

"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."

You may as well quote the Pope, since he has said the same. We wouldn’t want to have another “Galileo Incident,” would we? Augustine is the doctor of many of the doctrines of Catholocism, and while there is some good stuff in his confessions, he was also the man who opened the door to many teachings that are contrary to the Bible.

Nevertheless, it is unwise and unscriptural to believe in evolution, according to the Bible, my ultimate authority. Why don’t you make it yours? “Whosoever will, come.”

Sincerely,

Andy

Let's say there is a God...

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:51:00 -0700

A website has been designed whose intent it is to promulgate a day (not sure when, exactly) where all Americans imagine there is no god. It's called "The Great American God-Out," and on that day, we're to then see if we still can identify a sense of morality in ourselves. These aggressive atheists have come up with a host of questions for you in the form of a nice "game" to play, which essentially requires you to (if you are a theist) abandon your presupposition that there is a God. Questions like:

Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not?
Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not?

You can see where they're going with this. "Hey, we don't really need god at all, do we?" One could very easily turn the game around, whereby atheists would have to change their presupposition, just for one day, to "there is a God. " This of course can be demonstrated (Romans 1:20 for example), but that is not within the scope of this article. Once you had them imagining there was a God, you could ask them questions like:

Say there is a God. Would you expect him to reveal himself to you?

This could lead you in a discussion about the Bible, God's revealed Word. The topics would be endless. You could describe fulfilled prophesy, the great proof God gives that He is who He says He is, and so on. There is no more sound evidence (a "more sure word" the Bible calls it) than accurately predicting the future without error, which the Bible does. You could then follow up with the question,

"Say there is a God, and the Bible is indeed His revealed Word. Would you expect that Bible to reflect what you see in the world around you?"

This gets to the heart of a person's worldview, which is at the crux of the argument : either evolutionary humanism, or God Createdism. If you are a Creationist, you could explain the 7 Cs of History, discuss geology, astronomy, paleontology, death, suffering, fossils, rock layers, sin, curse, fallen Man, and redemption through the Saviour. You point to Christ as the solution to the sin problem. Alternatively, if you are a theistic evolutionist, you probably couldn't point to the Bible as being consistent with what we see in the world without some serious mashing-up of Genesis. You may say, "don't worry about the worldly evidence not lining up with what the Bible says way back there in Genesis. Just remember that Jesus loves you, and he died for you." That kind of answer is perhaps what got the atheist to become a skeptic in the first place, because the foundation of the Gospel - our need for a redeemer - has not been built. Winning an atheist to Christ means you have to first take away the idea of a redeemer as foolishness, and replace it with the idea of a redeemer as necessity. Just some thoughts...

Creation Museum Visit

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:08:00 -0700

Well, we finally managed to get the family packed up for a trip to the Creation Museum. If you can go on a Monday in November, you will have a great opportunity to experience the exhibits without having to peer over someone's sholder. With a few exceptions, such as the Stargazer Planetarium and the Special Effects Theater, we had our pick of seats, and the lines were non-existent, giving us the opportunity to take as much or as little time as we needed. After a handful of guests stopped and talked to Dr. Georgia Purdom after her talk, my wife and I had her all to ourselves in the Dragon Hall bookstore, as we peppered her with questions on how to evangelize, how to get a church fired up over this issue, etc. Dr. David Menton's "Microscarium" presentation where we used a flat screen tv to view what kinds of God's creatures could be seen by peering into a drop of water from the pond outside, was an impressive look at just how complex a "simple" single celled protozoa can be as we watched them twirl like tops to gather their food. Despite having the whole museum pretty much to ourselves, we had to scramble to see everything in one day, and in fact missed quite a bit. The kids didn't get to partake in the two Dino Mite Readers programs, I missed a talk, as well as a second Planetarium exhibit on the planets. You could easily spend over a day there. It was almost too cold to visit the petting zoo, but that, feeding the fish off of the deck, and the maze, all outdoor activities, were some of the favorites on their list. The kids also enjoyed the entryway, with the exhibits and live animals, tremendously, along with the Dinosaur Den, and the treasure hunt. The more things that can keep the kids captivated, the better the family experience will be. It was great to see the Museum completed, since the last time I was there it was under construction. While in town, we talked up the Museum as much as we could. We were amazed to find out how few locals have been there, despite the Museum breaking all projected attendance estimations. While some have never heard of it despite living 20 minutes away, others complained that it was too expensive. We urged them to go regardless. The Museum is top notch, and of the highest quality, and I have no doubt the operating budget is immense. I'm sure any financial barrier that could be removed, has been, so that more people have a greater opportunity to experience the Truth at this unique institution. It was a great trip. I hope to do this once a year, and would like to organize a church trip, though coordinating a weekend trip to a destination five hours away and getting back back for Sunday Morning Service would be quite a challenge.

This grass will blow your mind

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:35:00 -0700

It wasn't too long ago that evolutionists believed that grass (you know, the stuff that grows in your yard) was not around for the dinosaurs to munch on, since the so-called evolution of grass took place after the dinosaurs became extinct. Again, real scientific evidence has forced evolutionists to change their thinking, because grass has been found in dinosaur dung. Once again, this supports my claim that evolution is a load of poop. Sadly, like dogs, too many people swallow it!

Gov. Palin: young earth creationist?

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:28:00 -0700

It's one of the smartest things I've ever done - reach the YEC conclusion, and it's also a bold move. I'm sure some of my friends think I'm crazy. Yes, it would be encouraging to see a politician as prominent as one running for VP professing to be a young earth creationist, and I wouldn't be surprised if she stopped by the Creation Museum with her family between campaign stops. She has argued for equal time for Creation in public schools, and dedicated Alaska to God. She's awesom. Yet for the most part, atheism will continue to hold the monopoly in the public school arena. If you disagree about atheism being taught in the public schools, remember this:

Incidentally, it should be noted that there is no such position as a "neutral" or "non-religious" stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through "natural" processes, defining science as explaining things by "natural" processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief--that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism--in essence, atheism--is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against--clearly teaching that there is no such "neutral" position.

From recent AiG article.

"We Welcome All Races"

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:47:00 -0700

Have you seen the yard signs stating "We Welcome All Races?" I have, in front of a Catholic Church, and at the YMCA, and elsewhere. I became very curious about the signs, and found out that they are part of a coordinated church response to the 100th anniversary of the Springfield Race Riots. Though the intent of the distributors of the sign is a good one, I think it presents an opportunity discuss the premise - that our society is made up of different "races." Is it? The term "race" is an evolutionary term, and this misunderstanding has led to discrimination, racism, eugenics, and so on. The solution to racism in part is to understand first that we are all one race, descended from Adam through Noah. That means that are all of "one blood" as the Bible puts it. Another thing to consider is that only descendants of Adam can be saved. A look at history shows us that cultures, or people groups, and not not races, are what sprung up from the dispersion at Babel. When we realize that the result of this dispersion are cultural differences, it allows us to focus less on superficial characteristics, such as skin color, and more on worldviews, history, and other defining characteristics that make up that person. The Tower of Babel explains a great many things, and if we don't understand world history through the history recorded in the Bible, we may miss out on who we really are. For more on the Tower of Babel, go here. The yard sign also cites 2 Cor 5:18-19:

¹⁸All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: ¹⁹that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting man's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

I'm not sure, but I think this verse is being used to support the idea that the "races" must reconcile their differences, and we must set out to accomplish this goal. However, this verse is really all about the Great Commission - God has committed to us the task of letting others know about Him. God has reconciled himself to us through Christ, but we still need to make the decision to come to Him. Those who have are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

Dr. Humphreys Posts First CMI Article; Science Supports Young Earth

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:31:00 -0700

Dr Humphreys moved this month from ICR to CMI, and my aggregator has picked up his first article with them, and it is awesome. In it, he tells how he accurately predicted a strong reduction in Mercury's electromagnetic field based on the comparison of 1984 field readings with the readings obtained by NASA's Messenger as it passed the planet. The results further confirm a young universe, not one that is billions of years old. Here's a quote: "When NASA's space program began many decades ago, nobody expected it to vindicate Scripture so strongly." Here's the full article. Everything is winding down, not up, as evolutionists would have you believe. At the rate we're accumulating genetic mistakes, it's a wonder we're not extinct. Thankfully, the Creator has assisted with our longevity through the use of DNA repair Enzymes.

Professing to be wise, they became fools

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:35:00 -0700

Today's devotional from ICR illustrates how hard it is for anyone who knows Israel's relationship with their Creator to believe that they could succumb to a belief in evolutionary paganism, and completley turn their backs on God. How could the Israelites have been led astray with such absurd ideas and beliefs? Well, the same story is being played out today, and has been played out throughout history, with negative consequenses. People are abandoning a belief in special creation over the far-fetched cosmogony of random chance over millions of years. Dr. Morris describes the transition into foolishness this way:

But this ancient delusion is highly sophisticated and realistic, compared to our modern "scientific" evolutionism. Modern "inflationary" cosmogonists actually believe that the entire ordered universe evolved out of a "quantum fluctuation in a primeval state of nothingness." Modern "origin-of-life" biochemists have faith that dead chemical elements in a primordial soup generated complex living cells against infinitely impossible odds. And many modern physical anthropologists credulously insist that chattering chimpanzee-like "hominids" were miraculously transmuted into intelligent, spiritual human beings--all in spite of the fact that true science utterly repudiates every aspect of this impossible evolutionary fantasy.

Will the children who are taught this in school have enough if the Truth in them to be unwavering in their beliefs? It is up to us as parents to ensure that they do.

Survey SAYS:

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:22:00 -0700

CMI has published a young earth questionnaire to ascertain whether the person is a YEC or not, and I plan on seeing if my pastor will take it, because in filling out the questionnaire and reading the "whys" of each question, much will be revealed to both parties. I was also considering contacting CMI to see if they will allow me to collect tallies of such surveys over at my Literal6 website, so that people can find out what various pastors, etc. believe. It would be cool to integrate it with Google Maps so people can see where the YECs are in any geographic location.

125000 Gorillas Found

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:08:00 -0700

Yes, we need to more than double the estimated population of gorillas living in the Congo, as 125,000 more have been found. What is interesting here is that they were all willing to stand in line and be counted. I mean, I just got back from Six Flags, and a line of 100 (people) made me want to run and hide too. What is more incredible to me is the fact that they were unaccounted for in the first place. We are so sure that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago despite the Biblical and historical account of dinosaurs living with man, as well as the eyewitness account of tribesmen living in the same place (the Congo) as these gorillas, (as well as eyewitness accounts in other places in the world), that we scoff at the idea that even one may still be alive, though there's probably more. If we can overlook 125,000 gorillas, surely the possibility of one sauropod alive and well is strong. Just because we don't have one in a zoo does not mean they don't exist in a remote area of the world, such as the 18,000 acres these gorillas were "hiding out" in. I wonder just how much it would take to equip the local eyewitnesses with disposable cameras and advertise a reward for a picture of one - alive and well. What would it do to the belief in millions of years?

Video devotionals

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:09:00 -0700

Every evening I spend some time with my family doing a devotional. Up to now it's been all book based, but next week I'm going to start doing video devotionals. I like to touch on creation quite a bit in this blog and in my devotionals, because having the right information on origins is one key to winning people to Christ. I'll be starting with Dr. Jason Lisle, and though the short vid is not directed at kids, I think mine will pick up quite a bit. Plus, the video is easy to stop at any time for further explanation.

"Error Catastrophe"

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:22:00 -0700

Error Catastrophe. It has a lovely ring to it, doesn't it? It's one of those phrases you really don't want to be applicable to anything that involves you personally. But for me, Error Catastrophe nearly applied to one recent real-life event, and also to an altogether unrealistic non-event, which is actually more relevant to the former. The similarity? Both never happened. Thank God. First, for real life. In NASCAR, it's called "Tradin' Paint." In cycling, it's just plain scary, and the error can lead to catastrophe. I had just gotten done taking my pull at the front of a training race, when a rider comes up alongside me and we bump handlebars. Not cool, especially on my first ride after a nerve-frying crash that took place right in front of me and ended the season for two other cyclists. I just don't need that any kind of easily avoidable catastrophe in my life. Then there's this. Dr John Sanford, inventor of the gene gun, in his new book Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome (available soon), shows that the known rate of harmful mutations accumulation would have resulted in error catastrophe if we had really been around for millions of years. In other words, at the rate mankind is generating genetic mistakes [and some of you are generating more than others - you know who you are :-)], mankind would not be sustainable in the time it supposedly took place for man to evolve through chance, random processes. Such haphazard and brainless processes only produce deleterious mutations, and do not produce new information and do not support the idea that paleontologists emerged from pond scum over millions of years.

My Kids Would Love This One

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:30:00 -0700

To my kids, few things are cooler than a dinosaur, though they've all died out 65 million years ago (*hack* *cough*), and so we missed that window of opportunity to see one by a few mil. If only we were born during the time of our dumb, ape-like ancestors. For now, my kids will have to settle for patrolling the coast for sea shells or the edge of a pond for snakes and turtles. But what if we lived in Paupa New Guinea, like Tony Avil, and instead of hunting for lizards, we came across a Therizinosaurus, like many other folks have who live in the area? That would be quite a sight, and while extraordinary, the sighting would not really be all that surprising to those of us who believe the earth is not millions of years old. For those who do, how many would change their mind about their millions of years worldview if they happened upon such a sight? I'd like tosupply the locals with disposable cameras so we can get a picture of this beast. Thankfully, my kids have already been introduced to the worldview war that is taking place now more than ever, and since they know which side is right, they can therefore interpret the evidence of dinosaur sightings appropriately without having to disrupt their way of thinking.

The "We Now Know" Syndrome

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:54:00 -0700

Often times new "scientific" discoveries, when contradicted by old "scientific" discoveries, are predicated by the "We now know" statement, or something to that effect, meaning, "We now think we were wrong before, but we're absolutely certain we're right now, until something better comes along." First of all, if something is truly confirmed by operational science through repeatable testing, then the testing will reveal consistent results, as in the case of simple mathematics. It's like saying "We used to think that 1 plus 1 always equaled 2. We now know, however, that 1 + 1 now equals 3." It doesn't make sense. One or the other is incorrect. But science, as in Discovery Channel or historical science, is not always hard and fast. Rather, it is based on presuppositions. And if your presuppositions are wrong, your conclusion is also wrong. This happens all the time in the minds of todays great evolutionary thinkers. This great ICR article article gives some great examples of the "We now know" syndrome.

Evolutionists have often foisted conclusive pronouncements of new "knowledge" upon the public, only to retract them later with a "We now know..." kind of comment. For example, for decades the age of the earth was said to be 2 billion years, but "we now know" it is 4.5 billion.1 And as geologist Andrew Snelling has documented,2 different radioactive decay procedures have been used to estimate the ages of Grand Canyon rocks, but have yielded only a jumbled confusion of perpetually-changing dates. The coelacanth was once "known" to be a unique fish that existed 400 million years ago before it evolved into a terrestrial creature with proto-legs. But the discovery in 1938 of a living coelacanth, and the observation that these fish are deep marine dwellers with no interactions near land, forced a revision to the story--instantly erasing 400 million years of evolutionary change and removing the coelacanth from its former status as a "transitional form." Another example of an evolutionary "oops" is Java Man. For decades, a small fossil skullcap was touted as an evolutionary ancestor to humans, but now "the current consensus of anthropologists is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations...rather than the Asian populations exemplified by Java Man."3 In 1993, Time magazine's cover splashed the title "The Truth about Dinosaurs--Surprise: just about everything you believe is wrong."4 The feature article suggested that contrary to the general perceptions about dinosaurs, they were not necessarily dim-witted, not necessarily cold-blooded, cared for their young, traveled in packs, were possibly brightly colored, and were not entirely extinct because they evolved into modern-day birds.

Read full article

Evolution is a "Science Stopper"

Thu, 29 May 2008 09:43:00 -0700

Evolutionists are usually quick to suggest that creation is a "science stopper." However, in the case of so called "vestigial organs, evolution becomes the science stopper. Vestigial organs is an evolutionary term describing organs in humans, such as the appendix, which some scientists believe are useless leftovers of evolution. If one assumes that the structure is a vestigial organ, then one generally stops looking for a function. If you believe in evolution, and believe that the appendix is a vestigial organ, you're not going to look further into any purpose it serves, end of story. However, in the case of the appendix (along with the gall bladder and other organs once thought to be evolutionary leftovers), it has been discovered that there is indeed a use for it. Thankfully, science wasn't completely thwarted by evolution in this case, and new research has determined the usefulness of such organs, which can prolong and enhance human life.