Cutting out the surrender to evolution

Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that…

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.

Quote source

Wise, K. (n.d.) In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 30th Jul 2017

Humanists show off their Biblical illiteracy

According to the humanist Joseph C. Sommer:

Jesus also erred in predicting the amount of time he would be in the tomb. At Matthew 12:40 he teaches: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Mark 15:42-45 shows that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon. But Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 tell us he left the tomb sometime on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Either way, the amount of time was less than three nights.

But Russell Grigg refuted this type of simplistic interpretation, over 20 years ago:

The ancient Hebrews idiomatically counted a part of a day as a whole day, so that ‘three days and three nights’ could have been as short as 38 hours. This explains how Jesus could say that the time He would be in the tomb (from late Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning) was similar to the ‘three days and three nights’ of Jonah’s experience (Matthew 12:40).

It is interesting to note that in Mark 8:31 Jesus is recorded as saying, ‘The Son of Man will rise again after three days’, while in Matthew 16:21 He says, ‘He will be raised again on the third day.’ Jesus thus used the two time frames interchangeably, and there is no error or contradiction concerning the time Jesus was in the tomb compared with the time Jonah was in the fish, as sceptics have claimed.

My two cents

And to think that humanists are critical of “biblical literalism” (a loaded term). Here, it’s the humanists who are more literalist than the literalists they criticise!

It’s one thing for humanists to bemoan Christians who lack scientific literacy—but humanists need to look in the mirror, and recognise their biblical illiteracy.

I think there’s a website that indexes creationist claims about scientific data—and I imagine that humanists would endorse that site.

But one of these days, I should set up an index of humanist claims about Biblical interpretation—and the times they get it wrong. Maybe this post can comprise the first entry.

Quote sources

  1. Sommer, J.C. (n.d.) Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible. American Humanist Association. Available Last accessed 19th May 2017.
  2. Grigg, R. (1995). Jonah and the Great Fish. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 19th May 2017.

When the creationist model beat the evolutionist model

According to James M. McGrath of Patheos:

On the other hand, if young-earth creationism were true, then the methods that mainstream oil prospectors use to find oil, based on an old earth and processes that young-earth creationists dismiss as “uniformitarian,” ought to be fundamentally flawed. If YECs had a better perspective, then they ought to be better at finding oil. And if they were, then they wouldn’t need the tax breaks. They could promote their Christian equivalent of Wahabism the same way the Saudis have, on the basis of oil-generated wealth.

But according to Creation Ministries International:

[Evolutionist and geologist Ian] Plimer criticizes creationism by saying that ‘the creationist model for our planet has yielded nothing’.

Firstly, mining companies generally have yet to experiment, as some creationist geologists and geophysicists have proposed, to see whether their rate of success in oil and mineral exploration would be increased using a creation/Flood model. In one instance a company in Canada did, and oil was found where the evolutionary geology model had failed.

Secondly, it could be argued strongly that the evolution model for our planet has yielded nothing. None of the practical discoveries depend upon the model of long ages. Stratigraphic correlation to find oil and mineral deposits more easily, etc. certainly utilizes the existence of particular suites of fossils as a characteristic of certain rock layers, but the (relative) success, of itself, makes no comment as to whether those fossils are there because of ecological factors, hydrodynamic factors, or whether they are separated from each other by alleged millions of years.

Quote sources

  1. McGrath, J.F. (2015). Ark Park Financial Troubles: Proof Young-Earth Creationism is Neither Scientific nor Christian. Patheos. Available Last accessed 19th Dec 2015.
  2. Creation Ministries International (n.d.) Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book. Available Last accessed 19th Dec 2015.

When evolutionists believe in evolution anyway

On Nov 27, 2007, in front of a packed house, CMI’s Dr. Robert Carter [a Christian] debated Mr. Rick Pierson [an evolutionist] in Dothan, Alabama, on the subject “Do Humans Have an Evolutionary Origin?”…

Pierson started by listing what he considered the eight best evidences for human evolutionary origins…His second argument was that of the reputed fusion of two ancestral chimp chromosomes to produce human chromosome 2…

Carter went on to discuss the fusion hypothesis for the origin of human chromosome 2. There is a diversity of opinion within the creationist community about whether or not it actually happened, yet it proves nothing for the evolutionist.

They claim common descent because one of our chromosomes looks like two of the ape chromosomes. But they would also claim common descent if we had the exact same number of chromosomes.

Quote source

Creation Ministries International (2009). The Great Dothan Debate
Do Humans Have an Evolutionary Origin?
 Available Last accessed 5th Sep 2015.

Carl Wieland victorious over Ian Plimer

A second major attack on the ministry [of Creation Ministries International] was by an Australian atheistic geology professor, Ian Plimer, who wrote a deceitful and inflammatory book, which was fêted by the biased media. Once again, too many people (including Christians) didn’t bother to check his claims. But Dr Wieland arranged a complete rebuttal of the book and an independent inquiry led by the honoured corruption-fighting Chief Magistrate of New South Wales, Clarrie Briese, and composed of church leaders of impeccable reputation. The inquiry showed that the accusations were completely without foundation. When Christians realized this was nothing more than a vexatious attack by a God-hater, the ministry’s support grew substantially.

All of this was before the Internet era, so our opponents had a virtual monopoly on the public ‘microphone’ via the mass media. After our website was established, we demonstrated that we could refute false accusations quickly and thoroughly, and reach the public readily as well. After that, Prof. Plimer largely left creationists alone and has taken up refuting global warm-mongering alarmism. Dr Wieland noted that Plimer “[is] now the pariah of the leftist media who once cheered him on in his attacks on creationists,” and sent him a note of commiseration.

Quote source

Sarfati, J. & Bates, G. (2015). Dr Carl Wieland retires after four decades
Tribute to ministry founder as CMI enters new phase
. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed  8th Jun 2015.

The Big Bang’s unprovable assumptions

Interestingly, most people think that the big bang has already been worked out, but they don’t realize that there are differing versions of the big bang model—and not everyone agrees.  By inserting a few unprovable assumptions at your starting point, you can end up with virtually any model you like. The big bang assumes that the universe has no centre or edge. Not only is this not proven, some recent research on redshift patterns have badly damaged its credibility by indicating that our galaxy is at, or near to, the centre of the universe.

Quote source

Hartnett, J., cited in Bates, G. (2003). Exploding the big bang!
An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 14th Mar 2015.

David Attenborough’s naiveté trumped by J.S. Bach

The atheist David Attenborough considered that:

Great minds can express themselves in music. Bach can communicate not only to his own people but across the centuries. Bach is about mercy and about love of humanity and a vision of the infinite—what that means I have no idea—but I can’t think of any other words to use to explain many a Bach cantata.

This was followed by an astute observation from Russell Grigg:

Very interesting, especially in view of the fact that Bach once said, ‘Music’s only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit.’

Quote source

Grigg, R. (2008). Sir David Attenborough: so much to live for; nothing to die for! Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 21st Feb 2015.