In This Issue
Creation Science Fellowship meetings are free & open to the public. Starting at 7:00 p.m. and generally on the third Tuesday of the month.
September 16th meeting --- Alameda Bible Church at 220 El Pueblo Road, Southwest of the Paseo Del Norte and 2nd Street interchange.
October 21st --- Faith Bible Church located at the corner of Moon and Central.
September 16, 2003
Genealogy of Christ, by Art Cordoba
Art realized there was an enigma concerning Christ's genealogy when some of his atheist friends pointed out the apparent discrepancy in Christ's genealogy found in Matthew from that in Luke. Art will resolve the lineage of our Lion of the Tribe of Judah in his talk.
A Message from Mark De Spain
I would like to extend a most grateful
THANK YOU
to all who came to the last meeting and offered your feedback on how to improve the "Starlight and Time -- Revisited" video. I had several very useful comments and recommendations. I will be working for the next month or so to incorporate as many of them as I can.
Please keep this work in prayer that it will be completed soon and that God will receive glory and honor through it.
Mark De Spain, Forever Productions
The Importance of Creation
to Faith and Knowledge - Part III
by Mark De Spain
This issue [of going "beyond what is written" leading to conflict, pride, and error] is so important that a specific example is needed. Don Stoner, who has a degree in Physics and holds to an old-earth, progressive creation interpretation of the Bible, wrote a book called A New Look at an Old Earth. In his book, Don says: "Christians are often inclined to take the young-earth position simply because it appears to be the plainest reading of the Bible." (p. 33) Don knows that the young-earth position is the plainest reading of scripture, and yet, he goes on to say that: "God may actually have intended a meaning in Genesis that is different from the plain reading." (p. 33) Now why would Don Stoner doubt the obvious and intended meaning of the words of God? Elsewhere in his book he says that: "The young-earth teaching is the result of theologians forming dogmatic theories after examining the Biblical part of the evidence and paying insufficient attention to God's creation." (p. 28)
What is Don getting at here? First, Don claims that theologians form dogmatic theories, second, that the Bible can be considered as evidence, and third, he feels that the "creation" has not been given the attention it deserves. The definition of theory is: "A plan or scheme existing in the mind only..." While the definition of dogmatic is: "Marked by authoritative, often arrogant, assertion of opinions or beliefs." In other words Don claims that theologians construct "authoritative, or even arrogant assertions of opinions or beliefs existing only in their minds." Now, Don didn't mean to insult theologians, but he does strongly imply that written documents cannot be trusted, including the Bible, without corroborating evidence. This may well be valid, if the one that is writing is not trustworthy. However, countless people rely upon written communication alone to convey real and understandable meaning, because the source can be trusted. So why is the Bible suspect in the eyes of Don Stoner? Perhaps his assertion about the Bible as evidence will explain.
One of the definitions of evidence is: "An outward indication of the existence or fact of something." In other words, the Bible may give an outward indication of a fact, but not the fact itself. The Bible is only one piece of the puzzle, according to Don, and truth must be found elsewhere. Whether consciously or not, Don has said that the Bible is not a reliable source of facts regarding the creation. Apparently he believes that the facts of creation can only be found outside the Bible, namely in "the creation" itself. On the surface it seems reasonable. A deeper understanding of the Old Testament is revealed in the light of the New Testament. So won't the actual creation deepen our understanding of the Biblical accounts of creation? The answer is yes, if the Bible is used to gain a proper understanding of the creation, but Don Stoner, and other religious evolutionists, would rather use their view of creation to "interpret" the words of God. Remember that there is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts what is in the Old Testament. But religious evolutionists are suggesting that "the creation" does contradict what is plainly written in scripture. ("God may actually have intended a meaning in Genesis that is different from the plain reading.") The Bible, however, is not circumstantial evidence to be weighed in the balance with other "evidence." Rather, the Bible is testimony--developed from original eyewitness accounts of actual events. That testimony is either true or it is false, but it is not evidence. And its veracity depends on the trustworthiness of the writer.
In his book, Don says: "Here it will be demonstrated that the universe is much older than the twenty-four-hour interpretation of Genesis ... One of the simplest proofs is a consequence of the size of the universe and the speed of light." (p. 54) What Don is talking about is that light emitted from the most distant objects visible to us will take between 15 and 20 billion years to reach the earth. Don believes that this is irrefutable evidence "from the creation" that the earth is at least that old. However, even though the speed of light is fixed, and the universe is 15 or 20 billion light years in any direction that still does not fix the age of the earth. Dr. Russ Humphreys, a physicist, has written a book called Starlight and Time. In the book he developed a scientific model based on scripture and Einstein's theory of relativity in which today's universe could be the result of the events during creation week even though only six literal twenty-four hour days had elapsed on the surface of the earth.
So why do Don Stoner and Russ Humphreys have different views? The difference is that Russ assumed that God meant exactly what He said about the creation week, and applied the laws of physics and his knowledge of scripture to discover how God could have created and shaped the earth and the universe in six literal earth days. Don, as he said in his own book, does not trust the plain reading of the Bible and he chose to follow the assumptions and speculations of mortal men even though he knows that they are in conflict with the plain reading of the scripture.
How can the truth of scripture and the facts of creation be discovered if, in fact, "God may actually have intended a meaning in Genesis which is different from the plain reading?" Who could possibly ever know what God's intended meaning was if He did not state it plainly? If the Bible is true then the sensible course of action would be to use the Bible to "interpret" the creation, so that scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and life would conform to scripture, rather than the other way around?
But when scripture is "interpreted" according to the latest speculations and opinions about nature, then the Bible becomes a confusing muddle. If physical death was in the world before Adam, then what was the consequence of his sin? If the only consequence was spiritual death, then why did Jesus Christ have to suffer and die in a physical body so that we might experience a physical resurrection? Why did God curse the creation in Genesis 3 when pain, suffering, disease and death already existed? And why would God call death and suffering good, for on the sixth day scripture says, "Then God saw everything that He had made, and it was very good." (NKJV Gen. 1:31a)
If the earth is billions of years old, and since scripture plainly affirms a recent creation as Don Stoner clearly acknowledges, then God has deliberately mislead and confused millions of believers over thousands of years about the way He works in this world. Apparently, only modern man with his superior knowledge and insight has been able to figure out that when God plainly said that He created the world in six, ordinary, twenty-four hour earth days, that what He really, really meant was that it took countless ages, and the deaths of billions of creatures before man ever existed.
If this is the way in which the words of God are to be understood, then what else has God said that He doesn't really mean? Maybe evil will never be overcome. Perhaps there will be no new heavens or new earth, and what about the resurrection? Maybe there isn't one. After all, if the creation account in Genesis is simply a make believe story, then maybe the promise of resurrection is only a story too. This is the slippery slope: if the plain reading of scripture is ignored in one area, then there is nothing to prevent all of scripture from being ignored and "re-interpreted" to our liking. If that happens, then what is true? Who knows the truth? Should Don Stoner or someone else be trusted to decide what is true simply because they claim to have more knowledge than anyone else? Is the Bible incapable of speaking for itself?
Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead on the third day after He was buried? If so, then how is this known and believed? Is there any proof in the natural world that He rose on the third day? Of course there isn't. The only reason to believe in His resurrection is primarily from the testimony of scripture. If the Bible is to be trusted with regard to the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it should be equally trusted when it speaks about the natural world. In John 3:12, Jesus asks Nicodemus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" If a recent, supernatural creation is not believable then how can a supernatural resurrection be any more believable? If the "laws of nature" and the evidence of science speak against a recent creation then they positively scream against a supernatural resurrection.
The radically different cosmologies of Don Stoner and Russ Humphreys is only one example of how the same data or facts from the natural world can appear to support more than one conclusion. The problem is not what can or cannot be perceived about the universe. The problem is that past events can never be repeated. The conflict is not between the Bible and science. Rather it is between the Word of God and the words of men. God, who was there, said it happened His way. Men, who weren't there, say they know better than God does about what He did. Who is to be believed? Each person must make their own decision, but, obviously, to follow the words of men is to reject the plain reading of scripture.
To be continued next month with Part IV
Where Has Evolution Gone?
By Steve Kern and Pat Clancy
Where has evolution gone,
Long-time passing
Where has evolution gone,
Long-time ago.
Where has evolution gone,
Now that creation has overcome
When will they ever learn,
When will they ever learn.
Where has Charles Lyell gone
Long-time passing
Where has Charles Darwin gone,
Long-time ago.
Where have Gould and Sagan gone
Now they're Creationists every one,
What a hard way to learn
What a hard way to learn.
Where have Morris and Vardiman gone
Long-time passing
Where have Austin and Wise gone
Long-time ago.
Where have Snelling and Humphreys gone,
Gone to the Grand Canyon every one
So they can help us learn.
So they can help us learn
Recent Activities
There has been a lot of Christian activity in the Creation arena in the past month. Both Dr. Russ Humphreys and Dr John Baumgardner presented at the International Conference on Creationism in early August. (www.icc03.org) Steeling the Mind Conference took place towards the end of August. (www.compass.org)
Jerry Simmons hosted another tour of the San Pedro Mine on September 6th. Alpha Omega Institute hosted Creation Mountain Adventures. At last month's meeting Mark De Spain gave us the premiere opening of his new video Starlight and Time - Revisited.
Tentative Schedule of Speakers
September; Art Cordova - Genealogy of Christ
October; Rebecca Keller, PhD - The Reality of Philosophies in Scientific Research
November; Thornton and Ruth Schwenk - "Fraud and Deception versus Truth in the Development of Human Embryos - Reversing the Plague of
Abortionism"
A Special Evening with Nancy Pearcey
When: Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Where: Foothills Fellowship, 12504 Candeleria Rd. @ Tramway, NE
What: 5:30 PM Catered barbeque buffet (space is limited, so RSVP early. Pastors and scientists are especially urged to attend. Meal cost is to be determined.)
7:30 PM Talk on "Inspiring and Instructive Models of How to Recognize Science as a Genuinely Christian Vocation" (in the main auditorium) Please RSVP no later than September 21 for EITHER event to: Thornton Schwenk, 897-2382.
Nancy Pearcey has been writing and speaking on science and the Christian worldview since 1977. In 1991, she became the founding editor of BreakPoint. She coauthored How Now Shall We Live? with Chuck Colson.
http://www.arn.org/pearcey/nphome.htm