Theological Newspeak: Why Some Folks Call Me, Ken Ham and Other Biblical Creationists “Radical Liberals”

A few weeks ago, Joel Watts responded to one of my posts concerning the British Humanist Association’s efforts to mandate by law the exclusive and uncritical teaching of orthodox evolution in UK schools. He basically sided with the humanists that evolution needs legal protection. This is the usual reaction of extraBiblical creationists [those who give lipservice to the Biblical doctrine of Creaton but actually hold extraBiblical sources as their ultimate authority where it concerns Genesis and related passages dealing with Creation, the Fall and the Flood]. As the shameful number of ministers who signed atheist Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project testifies, liberal churchmen chuck reason out the window every time they get the opportunity to show how “progressive” or “intellectual” they are by supporting evolution. They forget that by endorsing the Clergy Letter or the BHA’s “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” campaign that they are cutting their noses off to spite their faces; you see, by supporting these efforts, liberal clergy are endorsing the teaching of a purely secular [atheistic] version of evolution to children [children we’re commissioned by God to train up in the knowledge of Him], not the theistic evolution they actually affirm.

So they go about, puffed up with their intellectual pride at having endorsed evolution as compatible with religion, while their signatures and endorsements are used to promote and legally enforce an evolutionary indoctrination which denies any role in the universe to the Creator. Useful idiots, aren’t they?

In the post I mentioned, Joel also called me a “radical liberal.” In fact, he actually said:

“Our good friend, the radical liberal Tony Breeden, has a post up quoting the radical liberal mantra that Evolution is the “Only Scientific theory which needs to be protected by laws.” These radical liberals will stop at nothing until God is replaced with Ken Ham, the bible is no longer a source of authority, and our children no less than their Neanderthal cousins.”

Of course, that’s not what any Biblical Creationist really wants. We have no intention of replacing God with any man’s authority [including Mr. Ham’s] precisely because we affirm the Bible as our ultimate authority, while extraBiblical creationists affirm liberal theologians and evolutionary scientists as their ultimate authority.

Likewise in a more recent post, he referred to “Ken Ham and other liberals” and termed the Biblical doctrine of Creation “the radical liberal agenda.”

The first question I asked myself is why someone would call me or anyone else who defends the traditional, orthodox view of Genesis a “liberal”?

He provides the answer in a comment:

“I’ve often explained why [Ken Ham] is a liberal; however, for those who need it spelled out to them more than I have in this post, allow me.

Ken Ham and other YEC’ers are reading into Scripture something which is not there. They are using the Text to support their preconceived view of Scripture instead of letting Scripture shape their views. Thus, a liberal. They do not hold to the authority of Scripture any more than those who deny Christ’s Lordship. Thus, a liberal. They take Scripture and twist it to fit their purposes. Thus a liberal. I thought that this was pretty spelled out for them, but seeing as they cannot read past a few spelling errors – so, I’m not perfect – then I will do my best to help them along. I think that I’ve used small words, but I’m not sure.

But, I did not that Ham attacked rather than engages – point proved. Lovely day.”

But is it true that Biblical [young earth] Creationists are pushing a new thing onto the Biblical text that was never intended? Of course not.

While he charges that Biblical Creationists are “using the Text to support their preconceived view of Scripture instead of letting Scripture shape their views,” he and his fellow extraBiblical creationists are actually taking the word of liberal historical critics and imposing their interpretations upon the Bible.

For example, when commenting upon Jesus’ words on marriage in Mark 10:6 (which reads, speaking of Adam and Eve, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”), Brother Joel warns that:

“We may ignore the fact that Christ had placed his own words within the context of marriage, but we cannot ignore the fact that if this verse points to a Young Earth Creationism, then Jesus was wrong.”

This is not allowing the Text speak for itself, by any stretch of the imagination. He goes on to use an argument [“In Genesis 1, humanity wasn’t created first, but last.”] which ignores the context of Jesus’ statement entirely, which isn’t Genesis 1 specifically [after all, He quotes both Genesis 1 and 2 in the verses immediately following Mark 10:9!], but in regards to history in general. Our Lord was simply stating that from the beginning of creation, man has existed [not merely appearing at the tail-end of history!]. And Jesus wasn’t wrong in saying so; It is those who  dare to impugn His veracity because the Text does not conform to their extraBiblical old earth presuppositions who are decidely wrong!

Knowing how this particular critic feels about Biblical [Young Earth] Creation, we shudder when we read these words on the Trinity and Justification:

“To me, having the Trinity as an ‘essential Christian doctrine’ is the same as having Justification of the Calvinist variety as the ‘essential Christian doctrine’ or having Young Earth Creationism as the’ essential Christian doctrine.’”

He even seems to cast doubt on the Virgin Birth:

“BTW, this is one of the issues I have with fundamentalism (on both sides) – what is wrong if we come to a new, well supported, understanding of what Scripture is saying.

For example, the Virgin Birth. There is major, major, and I repeat major evidence that the ‘virgin birth’ motiff was used by many ancients to describe the spectacular birth of a spectacular individual. What if we determined that this is what Matthew and Luke meant (I note that Mark, the earliest Gospel doesn’t mention it – and should, by all rights, and neither does John. Further, Paul’s voice on this is absent. Also, there are ‘heresies’ from the earliest times which amounted to adoptionism.) and not a Virgin Mary giving birth without the aid of a man, to the child Jesus?

The fact is, is that tradition and interpretation, and the need to preserve this singular tradition, would be upheld against provable fact…

If we do not allow evidence to guide us, we’ll never to get to that ‘all truth’ bit as promised by Christ in John.”

It’s the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth, not evidence [which requires interpretation, btw]. Do you see here where his ultimate authority is? The word of men who make no difference between the holy and the profane when it comes to the Bible. He takes the word of Bible doubters and claims we should be prepared to change our interpretation of the Bible based on the word of these scoffers. This is typical of those who hold to extraBiblical Creation positions. When they abandon the historical veracity it has affects their beliefs concerning other doctrines, because they have abandoned the Bible as their ultimate authority.

I digress.

One commenter on his site made the excellent observation regarding Joel’s accusation that the young earth position “wasn’t there when it was written, and only mandated in the last generation.”:

“This is misleading and completely false. This assertion suggests you know little, if anything at all, regarding the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 throughout Jewish and Christian history. A thourough investigation of early Jewish writings, as well those of the early church fathers, reveals that nearly ALL believed in a young earth (less than 4000 to 6000 years old). Most believed in a literal, historical interpretation. In fact, the young earth viewpoint was the dominant one until the 1800s. Even those who didn’t take the Genesis 1-3 account as literal history (i.e. Origen, Augustine and Philo) still believed the Bible taught a young earth. The old earth viewpoint is the new kid on the block and didn’t start to gain traction until the late 1800s after Darwin published his Origin’s of Species. Heck, even one of the oldest forms of OEC, the Gap Theory, still took most of Gen 1 as literal and historic (i.e. a second creation after the supposed gap). So, to say that the the YE interpretation wasn’t there when Gen 1-3 was written, or that it was only mandated in the last generation, is completely false.

[The reader should note that one part of this comment, that the “old earth viewpoint… didn’t start to gain traction until the late 1800s after Darwin published his Origin’s of Species”, is in error. The Old Earth viewpoint doesn’t show up in the writings of theologians until the late 17th century, when mechanistic views of the universe were becoming popular. Still, the point remains that it is a Johnny-come-lately. No early church father wrote of an earth more than 10,000 years old, and with fiew exceptions they either professed a traditional Creation Week of six 24-hour days or the instantaneous creation view popularized by Augustine. (which ironically gives a slighty younger earth than traditional and modern creationists alike affirm)]

So there you have it. Far from being radical liberals, Biblical young earth creationists are merely carrying on the historic position of Christendom as handed down from the Apostles. So when Brother Joel says things like this:

“We know that [Ken Ham] takes things out of context, attacks fellow believers, and of course, has a radical liberal agenda to replace the authority of Scripture with his own science…”

…we should remind ourselves that he and extraBiblical creationists like him are only projecting. Put bluntly, this is a case calling good “evil” and evil “good” [Isaiah 5:20].  Or pigs “sheep” and swine “sheep” [Matt. 7:15], for that matter; however calling pigs “sheep” will not result in mutton, no matter how dearly he wishes otherwise. It is Orwellian newspeak.

Yet I must warn my readers that Joel is merely part of a new trend. It seems that many extraBiblical Creationists are otherwise mostly conservative in their theological views [or at least consider themselves to be]. Since they do not personally consider themselves liberal or modernist, they suppose they must be conservative and/or evangelical, but they are something else entirely! In any case, their standard claim is that either Biblical [young earth] Creation and extraBiblical creation are both equally orthodox [as Dr. Jay Wile claims] or that we Biblical Creationists have abandoned orthodoxy altogether by not re-interpreting our theology to suit modern notions [as Jonathan Dudley claims]. In other words, they either invoke a sort of “big tent orthodoxy” or they call evil “good” and good “evil,” or more specifically they call liberals “conservative” and conservatives “liberal.” How long before they applaud compromise as orthodoxy and condemn apostolic orthodoxy as dangerous heresy? Not long at all, if Brother Joel’s posts are any indication. They’ve already gone from saying they’re simply an alternative but orthodox view to demonizing the apostolic traditional of Biblical Creationism as “dangerous.” Anyone who stands up for the truth and tries to warn against these compromisers is ostracized and demonized as “intolerant.”

Yet the bottom line remains. No matter how dangerous they suppose Biblical Creation to be, it is such compromise with and capitulation to extraBiblical authorities that has actually been the cause of rank apostasy. As I wrote in another post:

“Do you honestly think those who compromise Christianity with millions of years and evolution are doing the Church a favor? Then look to Europe. Look to England. You are following in their footsteps. They long ago compromised the ultimate authority of God’s revealed Word for the authority of fallible men, to make the Gospel and Christendom more palatable to a scientific age. There’s barely any of them left. Their legacy is rank apostasy and a mass exodus from a church who told them it was OK to doubt their Bibles where it was disputed, but they ought to really believe that same Bible’s message concerning salvation. [Who told them that] even though a good part of the Gospel story, from Genesis to Revelation, is myth and superstition and pre-scientific misconception [that] God was still “omnipotent” enough to leave some of the message ungarbled by the fallible nature of His greatest creation.”

So if these compromisers call Ken Ham and myself “radical liberals,” I shall recognize their theological newspeak for what it is and press on in the tradition handed down to us by the apostles. I refuse to be intimidated by these false characterizations of my position, for it is the traditional position of Christendom and it is the unadulterated truth. If I lay down my Sword on this wise, the apostasy of Europe declares that it is our children who are at stake, so I make no apologies for a stance that says, “Let God be true and every man a liar!” And as I fight this revolution against forces within and outside the Church, who attempt to successively undermine the authority of God’s revealed Word and stifle the influence of Christian truth, I shall keep in mind the words of George Orwell:

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”



11 Comments Add yours

  1. Kevin N says:

    The claim that you or Ken Ham are “liberals” because of your young-Earth creationism is obviously silly.

    But Joel does have a valid point in that most young-Earth creationists read things into the Scriptures that simply are not there:
    — The Bible does not say that there was no animal death before the fall (Neither Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, nor 1 Cor 15 say anything about animal death).
    — The Bible does not say that Noah’s flood created most of the sedimentary rock record (and I don’t think it even requires a global flood).
    — The Bible does not place any limits on biological change (those who say it does read an awful lot of science into the phrase “each according to its kind”).

    Geological evidence may have caused Biblical scholars from the 18th century to the present to take a second look at what the Bible actually says and doesn’t say about creation, but that doesn’t mean that all of these scholars read science into the Scriptures. To be forced to dig deeper into the Word leads to being more Biblical, not to being “extraBiblical.”

    With Respect.

    1. geochristian,

      Thank you for acknowledging the obvious point that Joel is just being silly by calling Biblical [Young Earth] Creationists “radical liberals.”

      Of course, I must dispute your ridiculous bullet points, as Biblical Creationists most certainly do not erroneously infer things from the Scriptures as you charge. We do use inference, but these inferences are far from erroneous.

      For example, you state “The Bible does not say that there was no animal death before the fall (Neither Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, nor 1 Cor 15 say anything about animal death).” It’s true that it does not specifically state that there was no animal death before the fall. But if there was animal death before the fall and we have a fossil record that is the result of pre-Fall uniformitarian processes, then not only animal death but disease and thorns pre-date the fall, for there is fossil evidence of tumors in dinosaur bones and there are also fossilized thorns in the geological record. So we must ask ourselves, when God cursed the serpent and said [paraphrased], “Cursed are you more than the other animals,” in what way were the animals cursed if they already suffered death, desease, mutation and degradation? And since God cursed Adam with thorns, how is it that the fossil record as interpreted by Old earthers contains thorns before Adam? Furthermore, it makes more sense for animal death and a cursed earth [“cursed is the ground for your sake”] to be the result of the Fall; Adam was given dominion over the entire earth and, since when a king makes a mistake his entire kingdom suffers, when he fell, creation fell with him. We see then that the inference that animal death began at the Fall is more theologically consistent.

      You also state that “The Bible does not say that Noah’s flood created most of the sedimentary rock record (and I don’t think it even requires a global flood).” And of course you’re right. It only says that the flood covered all the high hills and all the high mountains and that everything that breathed the breath of life, save those aboard the Ark, were destroyed [which negates a merely anthropologically universal flood, btw]. We logically infer that if such a world-covering Flood actually occured that it would have left behind some physical evidence: as Ken ham puts it, “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. I’m sorry you don’t think that a global flood is required for it evidences the fact that you also haven’t read the relevant passages critically. The intent of the flood was not only to wipe out sinful Antedeluvian man but everything that breathed the breath of life. Given the years of preparation the Bible accounts to Noah, an Ark would have been completely unnecessary for a local flood; rather, Noah would have simply relocated. Nor would an Ark of the size the Bible describes have been necessary, neither would there been a need to take aboard birds [who could simply fly out of the path of destruction. By suggesting a local flood, you make the Flood account illogical nonsense and further undermine the authority and historical veracity of Scripture.

      You further state that “The Bible does not place any limits on biological change” but then beg the question by alleging that “those who say it does read an awful lot of science into the phrase ‘each according to its kind.'” Tradition speaks against you. If the term kind does not indicate species [and observations such as those made by Gregor Mendel suggets that it does not] then it necessarily means some level of classification above the species level. But since the word for kind is distinct from the concept of an animal or bird or what-have-you in general [for God creates cattle, beasts of the field and creeping things after their kind], it certainly implies some sort of limit on biological change so your statement is merely wishful thinking. The current concept of the Biblical kind at about the family level [in general] is based on the observation that the fossil record evidences stasis and sudden appearance and that biology evidences horizontal change within types of creatures but that one kind never becomes another [ie, a dog is still a dog and recognizably so, be it a wolf, English bulldog or weiner dog] and the inference of what kind must mean based on these observations. The inference of microbes-to-man evolution stands at direct odds with these observations [revealing the faith commitment of evolutionism] and is further based on the anti-supernatural premise of pure naturalism. As such, the grand theory of evolution is an all-natural origins theory that seeks to replace the supernatural origins revealtion of the Bible. The extraBiblical creationist must arbitrarily accept the all-natural origins tale as his authority over Biblical revelation in some matters and hold Biblical revelation superior to naturalism in others [eg. the Virgin birth, miracles, fulfilled prophecy, the existence of God, the Resurrection, etc] for the assumption of naturalism precludes the possibility of supernatural agency in its explanantions. As such, science conducted via naturalistic assumptions has become the search for all natural answers that may or may not be true and are certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible, yet science via naturalism must ever be blind to the agency of God and therefore must concoct all-natural Just So Stories to account for things that the Bible reveals were the handiwork of God.

      Finally, you allege that “Geological evidence may have caused Biblical scholars from the 18th century to the present to take a second look at what the Bible actually says and doesn’t say about creation, but that doesn’t mean that all of these scholars read science into the Scriptures. To be forced to dig deeper into the Word leads to being more Biblical, not to being “extraBiblical.”

      Of course, the analogy of uniformitarian geology is likewise based on the anti-supernaturalistic premise of pure naturalism and therefore suffers from the same flaws of inconsistency and arbitrariness that microbes-to-man evolution evidences. The premises of exclusive naturalism and special creation are mutually exclusive. To avoid arbitrariness, some standard for allowing supernatural agency in the midst of a general condition of naturalism must exist. Biblical revelation provides this standard. Except where Scripture states otherwise, we may assume that all things have continued as they have since Creation and the Flood. But if we deny one point of revelation in favor of the all-natural interpretation of modern science, but deny the presumptions of naturalism on other points of supernatural revelation, we are found to be both inconsistent and arbitrary. Basically, extraBiblical creationists have reduced the Bible to a matter of personal preference, or worse to being the slow retreat of Christianity and Biblical authority from the sphere of material relevance in any matter science via naturalism disputes.

      Rather than being forced to dig deeper into the Word, as you mischaracterize, compromise Creationists are constantly forced to revise the faith once delivered to suit the antisupernaturalistic interpretations of modern science.

      Sirius Knott

  2. Cheradine says:

    “The old earth viewpoint is the new kid on the block and didn’t start to gain traction until the late 1800s after Darwin published his Origin’s of Species.” The observation is neither “excellent” nor much of an “observation” since the idea of an Old Earth had gained traction before 1859. Specifically Lyell published his 3 volume work Principles of Geology, which laid out uniformitarianism and popularized Hutton’s ideas including long ages, between 1830 and 1833. Some two decades before Origin of Species was published!

    1. Regardless of a discrepancy of a few decades, the point remains the old earth creationism, not young earth creationism, is a Johnny-come-lately, which refutes Joel’s claim.

      1. Cheradine says:

        Taking the totality of the human historical record the concept of an older Earth is hardly new when one looks at the Classical Greek philosophers and knows that 9thC natural philosophers active in the near and far east connected the development of the Earth’s surface with long ages. Augustine’s views about not betting Holy Scripture against tangible reality are well known, but perhaps less so is the fact that in 15thC Agricola was willing to write publicly that he did believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. This was without apparent censure from his Church superiors or his protestant patrons and neighbours. At least one 13thC writer makes similar comment suggesting such views, while perhaps rare, were uncontroversial enough to avoid censure. But perhaps the most important point is the fact that once the intellectual tools became available the idea of Yong Earth swiftly lost all traction and was only resuscitated indirectly by the visions of Ellen White in later half of the last century. Since which time it has been utterly unable to produce any hypothesis that does not inexorably slide towards the Omphalos argument or otherwise rely on evidence that is at best misrepresented and at worst fraudulent.

        And the initial blatent inaccuracy makes me deeply sceptical of further claims that the early Church Fathers and the Apostles were paid up YEC’s. To borrow a colloquial expression – “chapter and verse”?

      2. Cheradine,

        You’re being overly critical. I missed the inaccuracy initially. I usually correct such misconceptions, even if I quote something as it originally appeared. To err is human…

        That being said, with the rare exception of folks like Augustine and Agricola, a literal interpretation of Genesis was the exception rather than the rule. Some folks go about supposing that the exception invalidates the rule itself. I hope you’re not one of them. Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217), Origen (c. 185–254), and Augustine (c. 354–430) all interpreted genesis chapter 1 allegorically, but it is notable that Augustine was still very much a young earther. You see, Augustine believed that the Creation Week was a literary framework, because he believed in instantaneous creation. He supposed anything less than instananeous creation must impugn God’s omnipotence; he wrong wrong to think this [for just because God is capable of doing something with maximum efficiency does not mean He is required to – and why should the Creator not enjoy the process of Creation?], but due to his popularity his view of an even younger earth [by six days less than the literal creationist view!] became acceptable alongside the faith once delivered regarding creation. Interestingly, Augustine’s mentor, Ambrose of Milan (330–397), believed in a literal Creation Week composed of six 24-hour days. From Augustine until the Reformation, generally theologians took up one of these two young earth positions. If you search through early church writings, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view [including framework hypothesis and progressive creation] or an earth older than 10,000 years. This view does not show up until the late seventeenth century.

        You might also want to brush up on what we actually believe. The Omphalos argument has largely been abandoned in favor of Dr Russel Humphrey’s Ggravitational time dilation theory, aka White Hole Cosmology. You can learn more about his theory in the book [or video] Starlight & Time.


  3. Joel Watts has read my post on Theological Newspeak and responds in a post called Lies, Liberalism and Young Earth Creationism, in which he accuses me of quote-mining him. Quote-mining is a tactic where someone takes a quote out-of-context and uses it to misrepresent an opponent’s true position. Despite the charge and specific comments on each quote, he never demonstrates how the quote chosen misrepresents his position. In fact, he seems to challenge me instead to show how his position would be so wrong after all. Of course, I provided the quotes to substantiate my claim that Joel himself is the one drifting from traditional orthodox Christianity not the ones he erroneously calls “radical liberals.” He’s understandably upset that I’m using his own words against him, but he needs to do a little research into logical fallacies and see what “quote-mining” actually refers to.
    He also claims there is a correlation between the rise in Biblical Creationist belief in the US and the decline of the American Church, while categorically denying any correlation between a belief in evolution and the religious decline of Europe, calling such a position “baseless.” There is of course a spurious correlation between the rise of Creationist support and the decline of the American Church, but it is not a causal correlation as Joel proposes. Rather the rise in Creationist belief is a reaction to the decline of religion in America. The cause of religious decline in the US is an abandonment of Biblical authority, and acceptance of microbes-to-man evolution and/or millions of years is statistically proven cause of this abandonment of Biblical authority; Which is to say, the causal correlation between the acceptance of evolution and the religious decline of Europe is backed by research while the spurious correlation between the rise of Creationist support and the decline of religion in the US is backed only by Joel’s convictions in spite of the evidence.

    Somewhere in that mess of a rebuttal, he claims that I never addressed his argument against Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:6 being used in support of a young earth. Actually I did. I even addressed the context. He’s simply unprepared to accept the answer. Likewise, in his discussion of my comments on theistic evolution, he betrays the fact that he apparently only skimmed my article, for he grossly misrepresents my actual claim. I encourage him to read it again.

    His straw man argument against my use of the term “extraBiblical” is less excusable, since we’ve literally gone rounds about the issue of Biblical versus extraBiblical Creation and Biblical versus extraBiblical authority. The prefix “extra-” has nothing to do with an addition of anything and everything with being outside something else. ExtraBiblical refers to things outside the Bible; specifically, extraBiblical authority refers to holding something other than the Bible as one’s ultimate authority and extraBiblical Creation refers to interpretations of Genesis and other relevant origins passages in the Bible as being subject to the findings and opinions of authorities outside the Bible. Of course, I would expect someone so steeped in theological newspeak to attempt to use the term to describe someone who holds God’s revealed Word as their ultimate authority rather than the criticisms of men who reject its historical veracity. Of course, he quotes my definition of extraBiblical creation [“those who give lipservice to the Biblical doctrine of Creaton but actually hold extraBiblical sources as their ultimate authority where it concerns Genesis and related passages dealing with Creation, the Fall and the Flood”] so he cannot be wholly ignorant of the fact that he’s twisting the meaning of the phrase.
    Interestingly, while he accuses Biblical Creationists like Ken Ham and myself of being our “own determiners of truth,” he accidentally lets the cat out of the bag, by admitting the following:

    “Now, for me, Scripture is an authority. To say it is the ‘ultimate authority’ is to make it something it is not, didn’t claim to be…”

    Yet he claims that his method of interpretation is not subjective. If the Bible is not his ultimate authority, what is? For every man has an ultimate authority by which they judge truth from error. And if Joel is not holding God’s revealed Word as his ultimate authority, he is holding the wisdom of this age as such. Professing himself to be wise, he becomes a fool.

    He also claims that Biblical creationists do not fulfill the historic role of that prophetic voice which calls the Church to remain biblical and faithful. “Instead, he claims “the Young Earth Creationist fills the position of adversary, of fearmongers. They no longer seek to prophetically call the Church to remember the Scriptures, but now seek to suppress the Truth with unrighteousness and thereby corrupt the faith of many.” Do you see what I mean now about theological newspeak. He encourages us to abandon the traditional apostolic position on Creation and admits that he does not hold the Bible as our ultimate authority, yet he accuses those who cry, “Come back to the authority of God’s Word in Genesis!” of being fear mongering adversaries of the faith once delivered! He calls good “evil” and evil “good,” and truth “lies and lies “truth.” In short, he exquisitely proves my point.

    Sadly, the remainder of his article is more newspeak, straw men and outright ad hominem. The only things that he gets right are the following:

    1. I do have a loud voice. Just ask anyone who’s heard me sing or preach if I need a microphone.
    2. The fate of our children is at stake. Statistically, children who accept evolution as scientific truth generally go on to reject religious truth wholesale.

  4. Cheradine says:

    To whit white holes and time dilation. I think you’ve just rather proved my point about the Omphalos argument as the prior existence of the white hole may not be knowable leaving us staring at an old universe, with no way of knowing why, and standing upon an Earth where the entire corpus of human knowledge regarding geology points to a greater antiquity than that arrived at by totting up the genealogies in Scripture.

    I too fear for the future of Christianity, but I fear it is the “were you there?” generation that won’t be there in a decade’s time.

    As for being overly critical, we are supposed to show discernment in our arguments, are we not?

    1. Cheradine,

      Surely you realize that, in general, any appeal to the Omphalos argument is simply bad rhetoric. All you do by appealing to the Omphalos argument is betray your bias that we ought to hold to pure naturalism and not allow for supernatural agency. Even Thomas Huxley, darwin’s bulldog, and no friend to creationism admitted that:

      “`Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.” Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

      Yet to invoke the Omphalos argument in reference to white hole cosmology is to also betray the fact that you have not bothered to investigate it at all. Russell Humphrey’s gravitational time dilation theory does not appeal to any sort of Last Thursdayism; rather it takes relativity and applies it to cosmic universal time versus cosmic local time. Please investigate it further before making erroneous comparisons with the Omphalos argument in the future.

      If you fear for the future of Christianity based on the prevalence of the argument “Were you there?”… well, all I can say for you is that you’re no Bible scolar. The origin of the argument “Were you there?” is found in the book of Job and the argument is made by God Himself. Tell me how then it is not a valid argument, if God Himslef used it first?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s