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.
However, it didn’t take long for certain of the atheists attending [David Catchpoole’s presentation on creationism] to show their disregard for the church’s request that the speaker be given the courtesy of addressing the gathering without interruptions. I had barely started to mention the red blood cells discovered in T. rex bone by evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues in the 1990s when the loud interjections commenced.
“She’s retracted that!”, exclaimed one man. When I replied with, “No, she hasn’t”, there was a chorus wail of protestations from several in the audience. “Yes, she has!”, they exclaimed, and were deaf to my “No, she hasn’t” rejoinders until finally the fracas subsided for long enough for me to present the many other soft-tissue-in-dino-bone evidences more recently reported by Dr Schweitzer herself, and others, in the two decades since. E.g. the blood vessels in 2005 and DNA in 2012. (For good measure I also used the opportunity to mention the non-Schweitzerian reporting of radiocarbon in dinosaur bones in 2013.)
Thus confronted with these facts showing their claim was false, the protesters fell silent, and so with order restored I was able to continue.
This is what the atheist/biologist Massimo Pigliucci said in 2005:
Moreover, it is important to note that it was scientists who uncovered the hoax [of Piltdown Man], not creationists, which is both an immense credit to the self-correcting nature of science and yet another indication that creationism is only a religious doctrine with no power of discovery.
So that’s what passes for good research? Surely there are no echo chambers in something as rational as an atheistic worldview. Or are there?
Another assertion [Bill] Nye made multiple times [nine years after Pigliucci] was that creationists do not make predictions. However, this is demonstrably false. For instance, cosmologist Dr Russell Humphreys predicted that Mercury’s magnetic field would display specific characteristics based on biblical assumptions about its origin and age, which were proved correct.
Andrew Lamb expands on that:
Evolutionary predictions had proved wrong, but what of creationist predictions? Decades ago physicist Dr Russ Humphreys developed a planetary magnetic fields model based on the biblical assumptions that God created the planets 6,000 years ago, and that they began as spheres of water (Genesis 1:2; 2 Peter 3:5). He further supposed that God created the hydrogen atoms of every water molecule with their nuclear spins aligned, forming a massive magnet, which thenceforth decayed. In 1984 he used this model to predict the magnetic field strengths of Uranus, Neptune and Mercury.
His Uranus and Neptune predictions (radically different from evolution-based ones) were demonstrated to be astonishingly accurate when Voyager II visited these planets in 1986 and 1989 respectively…
Good scientific theories should be able to make accurate predictions, but evolutionary expectations about Mercury were substantially inconsistent with observed data. In contrast, creationist theories, such as Dr Russ Humphreys’ aligned nuclear spin theory of planetary magnetic field creation, have generated accurate predictions about Mercury.
Did you all see that ev-psych now says it’s women who are naturally not monogamous, in spite of the same folks telling us for decades that women are desperate to secure resources for their kids so they frantically sustain wedlock with a rich silverback who will keep them in cashmere?
Sigh. When a social science, made up entirely of observations and hypotheses, tells us first that men are polygamous and women homebodies, and then that men are monogamous and women gallivanters—and, what’s more builds far-fetched protocols of dating and courtship and marriage and divorce around these notions—maybe it’s time to retire the whole approach.
My backlog of unpublished quotes (sitting on my computer) is getting too big. I tend to put off uploading them because I don’t have the inclination to write my two cents worth anymore. So for now, I’m just going to upload quotes on their own.
When the Lord was preparing me for the creation ministry that started in our house in Australia back in the 1970s, I was burdened to search the world for any creation resources I could find to help equip me with answers. At that time, I was a high school science teacher in a public school. While there, I found that the teaching of evolution was one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the students taking the Bible seriously … or listening to the gospel.
In those days, creationist resources were very limited. Today, praise God, there’s a plethora of creation materials available.
One of the reviewers [of The Genesis Flood manuscript] had been Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, an Orthodox Presbyterian Church pastor in California. He was quite enthusiastic about the book and wanted us to get it published in its entirety as soon as possible. He was a friend of Charles Craig, owner of a small, non-profit publishing concern called the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., in Philadelphia. Rushdoony’s connection at P&R paid off for [Henry] Morris and [John] Whitcomb and The Genesis Flood was released in 1961. Rushdoony was able to see through the Dispensationalism of the authors and see the value of the book that they had written…
Rushdoony and Craig both understood that much of the battle for biblical authority is won or lost in the first several chapters of the Bible. Morris’s scientific expertise made the Flood much more than a simple theological concept. It had far-reaching implications and the shock waves are still being felt today. While Dispensational publisher Moody was dragging its feet and playing politics, P&R was willing to take the risk and cast their eschatological differences to the wind.
My two cents
This is an important part of Christian theological history from the 20th century. When most people think of R.J. Rushdoony, they think of Biblical law, but it is equally important to see his crucial role in biblical creationism as well.
I find a lot of books on Presbyterian & Reformed’s website interesting. I was glad to hear that The Genesis Flood has been reprinted as a 50th anniversary edition, and I enjoyed the video made in celebration of its release. Imagine how great it would be to marry girls who like things like this as well!
I also have a DVD of Dr. John Whitcomb, in which I liked his delivery and exposition on the book of Genesis. If it ever happened, I wish I could have been in the same room as Whitcomb, Morris and Rushdoony—three giants against humanism.
Here is a sequence of quotes from several parties; the first quote is an assertion, which I’m seeking to knock down (with the quotes after it):
(quoting Old Earth Ministries)
The fact is, the Bible makes no claims as to the age of the earth. We must interpret the age of the earth from science and the Bible.
The early church fathers, including Justin Martyr, believed the days of creation were a thousand years long. Literal days were not even considered until the fourth century, and it did not become a major theologic issue until the 19th century.
(quoting John Milliam)
Justin Martyr (Dialog with Trypho, A Jew 81) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.23.2) are sometimes mistakenly cited as teaching long creation days on the basis of equating “day” with a thousand years. This is a common error and we see it, for example, in Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 43. A day as a thousand years was never applied to the creation days themselves, only to post-creation history.
The earliest extant Christian writings on the age of the world according to the Biblical chronology are by Theophilus (AD 115–181), the sixth bishop of Antioch from the Apostle, in his apologetic work To Autolycus, and by Julius Africanus (AD 200–245) in his Five Books of Chronology. Both of these early Christian writers, following the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, determined the age of the world to have been about 5,530 years at the birth of Christ.
By the late 10th century, the Byzantine Era, which had become fixed at September 1 5509 BC since at least the mid-7th century…had become the widely accepted calendar of choice par excellence for Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.
Even the most mystical Fathers such as St. Isaac the Syrian accepted without question the common understanding of the Church that the world was created “more or less” in 5,500 BC. As Fr. Seraphim Rose points out: “The Holy Fathers (probably unanimously) certainly have no doubt that the chronology of the Old Testament, from Adam onwards, is to be accepted “literally.” They did not have the fundamentalist’s over-concern for chronological precision, but even the most mystical Fathers (St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.) were quite certain that Adam lived literally some 900 years, that there were some 5,500 years (“more or less”) between the creation and the Birth of Christ.”
In addition, the traditional Jewish understanding of the creation “days” of Genesis is that they are literal as well, as virtually all the Rabbis have understood in commentaries from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources.
My two cents
With the first citation, yikes! I cringe when people assert that rationalist scientific consensus—a manifestation of naturalism—is the most authoritative way to interpret the Biblical account of creation; the latter is a theological concept, not (just) a naturalistic one.
For those Christians that look to naturalistic reasoning to explain creation, I’m waiting for them to explain the Resurrection (while deferring to naturalistic reasoning) in a convincing way. It won’t do to assert just an old earth; if methodological naturalism is king, then be consistent and apply it to other doctrines—not just the more straightforward ones. A hopscotch approach (in both naturalistic and supernaturalistic squares) is syncretistic and bespeaks a lack of faith.
As much as atheists frustrate me, I can at least respect them for being philosophically consistent (i.e. always naturalism and never theology); they are far more consistent than certain Christians (i.e. start with theology, but resort to naturalism when one would rather doubt theology or overlook the historical position of the church).