Earth 2.0: Created By God

The apostle Paul once described a vital part of his ministry this way:  “We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5 NLT)

Of course, he wrote it in Greek and he might have considered the simplified English of the New Living Translation a bit elementary. For the record, I always view the New Living Translation as what the Bible would read like if James (whose own book is notably blunt) wrote the whole thing.  At any rate, you can see what Paul is getting at here. He argued, debated, and took on the rigorous task of making the case for Jesus.  He believed in truth -not manufactured truth but the actual stuff that can hold up under examination. In fact, Paul called out other ideas as “false” and “proud” and threw water on mere “human reasoning,” pointing out that it sometimes “keeps people from knowing God.”

Just to keep myself out of trouble, I’ll mention the old English of the King James Version says things like “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.”

Whatever version you prefer, the bottom line is human reasoning, arrogance, false arguments, etc… need to be challenged. In love? Yes of course, but challenged all the same because this doesn’t end with the latest “scientific” finding, or the latest politically correct phrase to substitute for “baby” when describing an abortion. Those severed arms and legs are fetal tissue. That brain is a product of conception. That liver is a clump of cells.

The human race is increasingly good at fooling itself, of building layer upon layer of assumptions and what New Testament generously called “lies” to the point that down becomes up, good becomes evil, female becomes male or whatever, and we all feel pretty smug about how intelligent we are.

And to be honest, none of us are immune. We all have to guard against this no matter who we are or what we believe. Assumptions are insidious things that lie dormant until someone comes along and shakes things up.

That brings me to Jeff Schweitzer. Frighteningly, Schweitzer is an actual scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst with a Ph.D. in marine biology/neurophysiology. Recently, the Huffington Post published his article “Earth 2.0: Bad News for God.” in which he goes on the offensive against God. He explains that soon we will likely prove that life exists on other planets such as the recently discovered Kepler-452b and this will deal a decisive blow against all religions because it destroys fundamental truths the Bible teaches. Yes it’s true that the Bible isn’t the book of choice for many religions, but Schweitzer was evidently making an example of the Bible by taking it out to the woodshed.

He made his point with some of the usual tactics of modern atheism, throwing up various false claims including that the Bible claims the earth is the center of the universe (it does not), that because God did not tell Adam and Eve about other worlds then in effect the Bible teaches there can’t be other worlds (a strained argument to say the least), and that God couldn’t have created light on the earth because the stars were already there. (Which of course assumes a number of things including that the stars could be seen from earth at the time.)  He took a statement from a Roman Catholic Pope and made it binding to what all Christians must believe, and he prepped his readers with the assurance that the discovery of life will undermine all religion -even if they make excuses for it after the fact.

All of this, an attack on the beliefs of millions of people that God exists, that Jesus loves them, and that there is hope of eternal life, came from a discovery of a planet that is earth-like?  With all due respect this is where I draw the line. This is where it’s time to challenge the ever-increasing layers of what Paul would call mere human reasoning and false arguments. Why? Because I want to enjoy a new planet for crying out loud. I grew up watching Star Trek on television and at the cinema, too. I want to be excited about Kepler-452b (who names these things?) but now I’m supposed to be threatened. When I was younger, people hadn’t even found one planet. I always hoped they would, and now that we are finding them we have to listen to these attacks?

Fine. Have it your way.

The Bible doesn’t say anywhere the earth is the center of the universe.

The Bible doesn’t say we are alone in the universe.

But we probably are.

I say probably because without intelligence behind it, there’s virtually zero probability on the side of the appearance of life on any planet, anywhere. We don’t even know how it started here, and hey, I’m just repeating what Dawkins said.

How does Schweitzer not know the number of galaxies and planets out there is no where near, not even close, to the number needed to have the slightest infinitesimal chance to have life? If you think all we need is one in a million, well that many chances take place all over the earth and new forms of life aren’t springing up anywhere. If you think it happens one in a billion, billion, billion, trillion… you’re still not even close yet.

Planets? You don’t even have enough “events” (elementary logical operations) since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Dr. Don Batten explains in detail that the chance of getting one small amino acid chain together, just using the various combinations possible, results in a chance of 1 in 10 (to the) 195 power.  And that’s just one amino acid chain. You need a zillion other things for life to appear by chance. Mathematician Fred Hoyle determined that the chances of inanimate matter becoming life worked out to 1 in 10 (to the) 40,000 power. Way back in the day, atheist biophysicist Harold Morowitz came up with an even worse probability of 1 in 10 (to the) 10,000,000,000 for a simple bacteria to emerge.

How big are those numbers? Well the number of ATOMS in the universe is 1 in 10 to the 82 power. That’s the higher estimate. So quite literally, there is a better chance of putting an “X” on an atom and letting it float in the universe for a billion years, then going out into the universe (pick any of the billion galaxies you want) and plucking a single atom and get THAT ONE on the first try, than there is of life appearing by accident.

In other words, there may be a billion planets but the chances are statistically zero that life forms all by itself.  If we think we can find life on the very first planet we check with odds like that, well… the powerball lottery should be a cinch.

It led Hoyle to remark: “It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

So probably… there simply aren’t enough planets, 13.7 billion years is not enough time, and there aren’t even enough atoms.  In fact, the numbers say it is flat out statistically impossible for life to appear without anything guiding it.

Like a Designer for instance.

Our human reasoning, our pride, our false arguments need to be challenged. They keep us away from God if left unchecked, and well… they keep us from seeing the obvious. We are not here by accident.

Creationism is Wrong, Trust Us

So sayeth those opposed to Creationism, the belief that an all-powerful God created the universe and all that we see and perceive in the physical or even spiritual world.  Regardless of your particular idea of creationism, whether you have a Muslim theology or a Christian one, or whether you believe the universe is very old or very young, you are simply wrong.  All the evidence is against you.

So sayeth others, therefore it must be true.

It’s been going on for awhile in case you missed it and thought it was still up for debate.  Writing about nutrition of all things for Real Clear Science, Ross Pomeroy was quick to compare fad-diets with religion.

“…both cults and diets profess to have “answers” and impart benefits that will irrevocably change your life for the better. Veganism’s pitch isn’t very unlike Scientology’s. Caveman Diet’s isn’t all that different from certain sects of Evangelical Baptism”

Excuse me what?  Baptism?  Are people getting baptized for it’s health benefits or even spiritual benefits? Why didn’t I know this? Someone should mention to Ross that baptism isn’t about its benefits. It’s a outward act that says I belong to Jesus from this day forward. It’s symbolic, not therapeutic for crying out loud. What a weird analogy.

But nice job coming after my religion when I was trying to read an article about dieting… geez.

Ross made a better analogy, at least in terms of actually having something to do with the subject, a bit later.

“With all the conflicting and poorly designed research out there, it’s easy to find evidence to back any dietary assertion. In the same manner, overly religious types, such as those who promote creation science, latch on to data that coincides with their beliefs and disregard everything else. Though their ideas are awash in woo, staunch creationists can present a very persuasive case.”

I certainly qualify as overly religious if that is possible. By this time I have forgotten that the article is actually over diet plans, and have become immersed in the typical attack of our culture against Jesus. Simply dismiss it without another word. Those of you who have been digging into the details, the evidences, and the facts are wasting your time. It’s decided already. No one won the debate, in fact Ross admits creationists can be persuasive, but that’s beside the point. It’s over.

As proof, and as proof that Ross was only mildly interested in writing about dieting, he linked an article attacking creationism entitled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.”

After all who listens to nonsense? That’s the point, see. The argument is over.

Our world does not write these articles or say these things with the purpose of having an enlightening discussion. They say these things to scoff just as the Bible predicted they would in II Peter chapter three.  And although it was talking about something else, the advice of Revelation 14:12 “This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus” applies very well.

Patience is very much in order, especially as I perused the article he linked.

You gotta love that the #3 Answer of the 15 Answers to Nonsense was upset that creationists give a “blanket dismissal of evolution.”

lol

Pot? Kettle. Kettle? Pot.

Ok, seriously though. What if we actually dug into these things instead of dismissing each other? I’d be willing to bet Bible believing Christians would realize that not all scientists are militant atheists, and militant atheists would realize that Bible believing Christians often have scientific degrees, credentials, and a valuable point of view.

And we’d all learn a lot of science.

For instance, the fact we do not find humanoid skeletons in the lowest layers of the earth does not prove humans evolved, even though evolution would predict that we would not find humans there.  Score one for evolution, but there are other explanations, even ones consistent with the Bible, which also predict finding the same thing.

Harder questions remain for evolution such as when it misses predictions, which it has often done. Evolution predicted that we would find junk DNA for instance, yet that turned out to be largely untrue. It predicted that Neanderthals would have smaller brains which is completely untrue, and it predicted we would find transitional forms, a slow development of life in the fossil record, and DNA proof that we all came from a single cell in one evolutionary tree.

And figuring out how something mutates into a substantially different creature sporting radically different DNA has been next to impossible in evolution so far. In other words, everyone tells you evolution happened, but no one can do more than guess at how it happened.  But trust us, they say, it did.

One final point. When you are left with blaming alien beings from outer space as your best guess for how it all started… you know you’re struggling.

The crazy thing is all of this is incredibly interesting. Too bad the discussion is over because this is the best it’s ever been. In fact, even though Christians are usually accused of being closed minded, the truth is most evangelical churches I know do NOT tell people to shun science.  Instead they advise to question everything and examine closely.

Even if the rest of the world is done examining.

Here Comes the Virus

If you’re like me, you hear American government officials and experts assure us that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to Ebola and you wonder if they just don’t want us to panic. It spreads like HIV (and even then for only a few days) and therefore is highly controllable. Most fears are overblown, fear-mongering, especially if Donald Trump says it.

And then you watch the news, hear the doctors talk about it being out of control, and well… c’mon it sure seems like Ebola spreads a bit easier than HIV. Like one comment tweeted to the CDC, I feel like asking:

“We are told it can only spread through contact with bodily fluids-similar to HIV. But seems more contagious than HIV? Why?”

The CDC assured the tweeter that yes Ebola is spread like HIV and you need close contact with bodily fluids, and then only in a certain window of time.  Ok. Granted.

But…ummmm….

That’s not exactly like HIV, which takes more than mere “close contact.”

HIV is NOT spread through touch, tears, sweat, or saliva.  So says WebMD anyway.

Ebola evidently is.

The bodily fluids that do transmit HIV -like blood for instance- “must come into contact with a mucous membrane or damaged tissue or be directly injected into your bloodstream (by a needle or syringe) for transmission to possibly occur.”  So says the government. I added the italics.

The CDC, however, makes no mention of Ebola needing to come into contact with a mucous membrane or damaged tissue.  To catch Ebola, the CDC says you need only come in “direct contact with the blood or secretions of an infected person.”  They go on to explain that it spreads in hospitals where people are not wearing “protective equipment, such as masks, gowns, and gloves.”

Then when you go to the Canadian Health Department, it gets scary.  They add that people are at risk when, and I quote: “handling the bodies of deceased humans in preparation for funerals, suggesting possible transmission through aerosol droplets.” That explains the need for gloves and “protective equipment.”

Then shockingly, they follow up with, “In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated.”

Again I added the italics because I was sitting there going “whaaaat???”

They end by saying poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus.

Ok, maybe the Canadians are fear-mongering despite the fact they are not named Donald Trump.  I don’t know. I’m not a researcher or any sort of an expert on Ebola or other pathogens.  Neither is it surprising that there is conflicting information about a disease we haven’t fully understood yet.

Nevertheless, it seems a bit obvious that Ebola is spread, and is spreading easier and faster than HIV does. The amount of close contact it takes to spread Ebola is much more casual, which is one reason why doctors don’t have to wear spacesuit-looking gear when taking care of a patient with HIV.

Hopefully, we will get all of these things ironed out, and the US government is not just trying to make us feel better.  Although, between you and me, don’t you just feel like it’s just a matter of time before someone in America gets carried into a hospital and tests positive? I hope not. I’m probably just thinking like this because I’m trying to quit diet soda.

So onto the big question:

Why God? Why did you ever invent anything like HIV or Ebola? Or E Coli for that matter??

If Genesis is correct and God created everything, then one would predict in the beginning everything was “good” like the Bible said.  Since then, however, everything would be breaking down.  The Bible says this started when sin entered the world.  The universe might have been created in perfect balance at one time, but when death and decay became part of the equation, we started to get more and more out of balance.  So a creation point of view would predict viruses or bacteria would get worse over time because they would break down, mutate, or get out of where they were supposed to be.

There’s an article on this you might be interested in, so I won’t go into as much detail, but suffice it to say that many viruses actually serve purposes, or at least didn’t kill us.  One virus was recently discovered that almost every human being has, which scientists theorize is meant to keep the bacteria inside our gut (we need bacteria) in balance.  In fact without bacteria, the world would die. Turns out at least some viruses play a bit of symbiotic role with them and thus… are actually necessary.  The implication is originally, before mutations took their toll, or the environment changed for the worse, that all these things were in balance, living where they were suppose to live, and doing what they were supposed to do.  You have “good”  E coli inside you right now, but there is one strain which lost some DNA somewhere that will make you sick now.  Creation would predict that sort of thing.

Which means that if Genesis is right, then Ebola would be expected to have had some purpose, or some place where it could exist and not harm humans.  For instance, the ocean is full of viruses but sharks and sea life still exist. (However, mutations or changes in that balance could also cause once harmless viruses or bacteria to cause problems. Like with the starfish dying off.)

So why did God create Ebola? I have no idea, but I bet in the beginning it didn’t harm anyone.  I bet  eventually we will discover it played a helpful role somehow. And ironically, if people followed God’s instructions on life, food, etc… We would have avoided many of those viruses. Weird, huh? It’s almost like he knew….

See, HIV didn’t wipe out the primates where it originally lived, and syphilis wasn’t killing sheep right and left either.  Originally, things were in more balance.

Or as the Bible said, it was good.

Since sin entered the world, however, the earth is slowly “wearing out like a garment”. (Psalm 102:25-26 and Isaiah 51:6)

I’m convinced God is letting the ship sink slowly (the earth) so people will look for the lifeboats.

Dear Senior Class 2014…

Thirteen years ago when you got home from your first day of kindergarten, most of us parents picked you up and asked, “How was your first day of school?”  A lot has happened since then. You tried to make good grades, you excelled in sports, in music, in art, or maybe in science.  It’s really amazing the talents you have developed.

This past week I picked up my daughter from school and this time my question was, “How was your last day at school?”  You have reached the last day, and just like that first day, we are excited for you and proud of you as we cheer for your success in life.

Did you know God cares about your success, too?  The Bible says “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.”  Knowledge can help you achieve the desires of your heart, of course, but God can do things no one else can. He has ultimate control over our success or failure.

I don’t know if you believe that or not. The Bible predicted “scoffers” would come in the last days and they’re here.  People will make fun of you for believing in Jesus. Religion is old-fashioned. We are evolving past it they say.  Bill Mahr says religion is the source of all our problems, and Bill Nye seems to think you can’t be a scientist or help the human race advance if you believe God created everything.

They can sound convincing, but that road doesn’t end well. The Bible talks about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it’s worth noting that it should have been Abraham, Isaac, and Esau.  Esau was the oldest son and should have been the next in line. His father loved him, wanted to pass everything down to him, but Esau just didn’t care.

He only cared about the here and now, and agreed to sell his birthright to his brother. The Bible says, he “despised” his birthright.  That decision destroyed his future.  That’s why we remember Abraham, Isaac, and his younger brother Jacob instead of Abraham, Isaac, and Esau.

You’ve heard people say God has a plan for your life, but you don’t have to care either.  The world will tell you not to worry about it. The world cares more about the here and now, but I believe if you go down that road, like Esau, you’ll miss out.

So here are three old fashioned things to hang on to no matter what the world says:

Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate: Now That I’ve Slept on it…

Despite the protests of leading atheists who didn’t want to treat scientists and human beings who believed in God as worthy of anything other than to be ignored, Ken Ham and Bill Nye nevertheless faced off for an in-depth, internet broadcast, and CNN-hosted debate over creationism, evolution, the Bible, the flood, naturalism, and definitions of science.  It was enlightening at times as even Bill Nye the Science Guy noted after Ham’s opening presentation.  The Saturday morning television science teacher started his own presentation by looking at Ham and admitting he had “learned something.”  At other times, it left multiple questions begging for answers and more time.  The demand by Nye at one point that Ken Ham answer a list of four important questions was comically followed by the debate moderator’s (CNN’s Tom Foreman) formal announcement that Ham had one minute to respond.  All of the proceedings, taking place last Tuesday, February 4 at the famous Creation Museum in Kentucky, provided both the benefits of sincere, polite discussion, and the limitations of dealing with such a huge subject in a mere two hours.  I simultaneously wanted more to be said, while getting tired of hearing it.

And you might be tired of hearing about it too! So I’ll try to at least be concise.

I loved it when Bill Nye talked about how much he loves science. Obviously I wish he understood how much I love it, too, and many other creationists, but you can’t help but enjoy his passion for discovering things.  What so many miss is how many Bible-believing Christians are science buffs.  It’s why we can’t get enough of Louie Giglio.  And yes, we do go to secular universities and ace those tests too.  Those decorated scientists who provided Ken Ham with statements via video clips did not have Theology degrees.

I loved that Ken Ham used the opportunity he had to keep coming back to the Gospel, the good news that God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son to die for the sins of the world.  Sometimes, it seemed Ken sacrificed debate time to do this, but sharing the actual Gospel to a worldwide audience was beautiful.  I’m sure it didn’t come close to convincing the most hardened atheist, but God knew who needed to hear that last night and they did.  Awesome, awesome, awesome thing Ken.

I love the fact that we had a real, and polite, debate between diametrically opposed world views.  We can’t even debate tax policy anymore without competing to see who can roll their eyes the most, but last night we saw something we don’t often see in the world lately, and that is respect for another human being.  Judging by the comments and articles following the debate, atheists are quickly trying to put a stop to this nonsense, but for a brief moment yesterday, both sides argued their case on the merits and appealed to people with reason.  That’s pretty cool, and as one of the news organizations noted in an article this morning, that’s worth something at least.

I loved that the two men both used power point demonstrations that seamlessly integrated into the broadcast.  It reinforced that this debate wasn’t just a name-calling contest that we generally see on the internet or the dismissive disdain from a Dawkins’ column. We all learned something because we weren’t turned off immediately. Instead, the audience was respectfully taught, whether they were in the “choir” or not.

I loved the fact that Ken Ham included video statements, and references from other decorated scientists who didn’t just believe in God, but believed in young earth creationism.  Bill Nye in particular has taken up the atheist effort to portray anyone who believes in creation as anti-science and the sort of people who will destroy America’s competitive edge because they are incapable of becoming engineers.  Nye continually went back to this caricature at the end of the debate, but his effort was largely diffused by the irony of several famous scientists who evidently were able to engineer important inventions and discoveries despite the fact they believed in God. Ironically, the famous scientists from history that Nye mentioned were often very devout Christians as well, so it doesn’t seem that much of a hindrance after all. Here’s another scientist’s take on that very issue (and several others Nye has brought up).  This is important stuff because modern day atheism is dishonestly propagating a lie in their efforts to win people to their side. Why would they do so? I believe the real cause is the spiritual battle. There is a father of lies, and this is what he does.

Hmmm…. that started sounding negative.

Ok, a couple of times I wanted to jump through the screen, besides the times Nye started talking about how anti-science all these God believers are.

They are called polystrate fossils. This is in the category of “Well Someone Should Mention This….” Ok. So in the debate, Bill Nye said he would change his opinion, and Ken Ham could change the world, if Ham could show evidence of a fossil that went from one layer to another. Ham never responded, but …ummm… Bill, there are so many of those particular fossils they have a name: Polystrate fossils. Mostly trees and at least one whale. You know, just in case you ever need this for trivia.  One question I wish Ham had countered with was how come we don’t find meteorites in those lower levels? Did it quit raining occasional meteorites for billions of years?

Ken Ham’s answers on radiometric dating were incomplete. He kept going back to the “we weren’t there” statement, but everyone knows it should be possible to study evidence today and make some educated guesses about how it got here. We do the same with crime scenes as Bill Nye noted.  What atheists don’t often note is that there can be more than one theory as to how things got this way, just like there is often more than one theory on what happened at a crime scene. Ken Ham was correct to say we all have the same evidence. I just wish the topic of radiometric dating had been delved into a lot more because most people simply accept it as Gospel.

Seriously, most of you reading this have never dated anything yourself and weren’t with the scientists who did. We all usually just believe what they tell us. At the risk of totally shaking your worldview built on your trust that radiometric dating is incredibly accurate, you should read this article.  Don’t worry, it was written by a real scientist with four degrees and a lifetime membership in Mensa. You’ll find it interesting.

Finally, I thought Bill Nye had a couple of good questions concerning people who had never heard of the Bible and where the Bible came from. He didn’t really ask the last one, but referred to it a lot.  I wish Ken Ham had taken the time to answer those more, because there are real answers for both.  Ken did say that eternal life with God doesn’t depend on what someone thinks about the age of the earth or evolution or something like that. You don’t have to be a young earth creationist to be right with God. Lots of Christians believe heartily in evolution. They may be right or wrong about that, but it doesn’t condemn anyone either way.

We are saved based on where stand with God. The Bible teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, even those who had never heard about him, both past, present, and future.  The Bible teaches that God reveals himself to the whole world through his creation. Someone might not know much about God, might not know anything about the Bible or Jesus, but they can still reach out to God because “the heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the works of his hands.” That’s from Psalm 19 and it’s quoted in Romans when Paul was talking about how they had “heard” the message from God.  If that’s the message-just the creation-that’s not a lot to go on. Evidently though, it’s enough.  They might not have ever heard about Jesus in ancient China, but I believe God reached out to each person, and worked in their hearts and in their lives based on what they did know.  Jesus is preached of course, because Jesus is the message that God wanted the entire world to hear before the end, but God worked historically and works today on people who haven’t heard yet.

Like I said, It’s a good question and I don’t blame atheists for wanting to hear a fair answer to it.  My answer is way too brief, but there it is.

I’m just thankful for the debate. I learned stuff too, and as we all hash through it and argue amongst ourselves, we’ll keep learning. That ain’t all bad.

God bless.

Bill O’Reilly versus John Jay?

One of our founding fathers, a guy by the name of John Jay, was very open with his belief in Jesus and the Bible. He also happened to be, at one time or another, the president of the Congress, a diplomat, the author of the Federalist Papers, the original Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and the governor of New York.  That’s quite a resume. He once wrote:  “The Bible will also inform (people) that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement ‘for the sins of the whole world,’ and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation;”

You don’t hear that from the Supreme Court very often, even less from the governor of New York, but John Jay believed in a Creator, in Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins, and in the need for everyone to be forgiven and saved from judgment.   God’s judgment.

These days, even conservatives and professing Christians like Bill O’Reilly won’t go that far. 

Age of the Earth Makes You Crazy

A poll conducted last year by LifeWay revealed that pastors of protestant churches were split on the question of the age of the earth.  What made it surprising to some was the pastors who were being surveyed were the types of people who usually take the Bible literally.  Most rejected evolution, but it was almost an even split over the question of the age of the earth.  In fact, the difference between the two sides was within the margin of error.  They were more united on other questions.  For instance, 82% at least somewhat believed that Adam and Eve were real people, and 72% at least somewhat disagreed with the idea that God used evolution to create everyone, but when it came to the age of the earth, they were split.

This may shock some, but it isn’t just a question between pastors.  A number of scientists and academics in the United States believe in a God-created universe, and as crazy as it sounds, quite a few believe in a young earth, too.  Yes, while many people view young-earth creationists as the equivalent of flat-earthers, this crazy viewpoint is actually debated and defended from the university campus to national news programs to movie documentaries.  In fact, the case for a young earth has spawned a multitude of organizations, websites, think-tanks, research groups, and even museums.  The most infamous museum is here, but there are many others, even some outside the United States.

Which brings about the question, why did half of the protestant pastors surveyed doubt the idea of a young earth?  Isn’t that what the Bible says?  Are they compromising?  Were they forced to admit the truth of science?  What?

Whether it’s good news or bad news probably depends on your perspective, but what you shouldn’t be–is surprised.  “Old-earth creationism,” the idea that God created everything BILLIONS of years ago, has been a common belief in Christianity for a long time.  Williams Jennings Bryan, the man who defended creation at the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” was an old-earth creationist.  There are Bible scholars, Hebrew scholars, and evidently half of protestant pastors who are in the same boat.  Many believe the “days” of creation were not 24-hour periods, but longer periods of time.  Others will argue there is a gap of time in the early verses of Genesis, which can account for billions of years.  There are other theories as well, but the difference of interpretation among Christians is so profound that in the book “Examine the Evidence,” Ralph Muncaster pleaded with Christians to avoid drawing a line in the sand over the age of the earth. “We should not allow these issues to weaken our presentation of the Bible,” he wrote.  And indeed, atheists and other skeptics should realize not every Christian who believes in the Bible, also believes the earth is 6,000 years old.

I used to be an “old-earth creationist” myself and as a result, I am very familiar with the Biblical arguments for it.  They were my arguments for awhile, too, and although I have since changed my mind and become a believer in a very young earth, I do sympathize with Muncaster’s point of view. In fact, I think he’s right when he argues that many people in our world will simply tune you out if they think you believe something goofy like the earth is young, or Noah built an ark.  This doesn’t mean we young earth creationists should be silent, but we should speak thoughtfully. After all, the vast majority of us have been told the earth is billions of years old for our entire lives and a 6,000 year old earth just sounds weird.  In the media, if someone is labeled as a “young earther,”  they are seen as losing credibility. Most people consider the age of the earth to be unassailable, and anyone who questions it is like someone who questions if 2 + 2 really equals 4.

So let me be reasonable.  The Bible never comes out and says how old the earth is, or on what date it was created.  To arrive at the age of the earth via the Bible, you have to infer it.  One way is by adding up the ages of the people listed in genealogies in the Bible.  Doing so arrives at an age of about 6,000 years. You can find those genealogies in places like Genesis 5, which gives a long list of people with weird names.  It details who was born, how long they lived, the names of some of their children, how long they lived, who their children were, and on and on….It isn’t the most riveting stuff in the world.  It’s almost like reading a phone book in France in fact, but if you’re trying to figure out how old the earth is according to the Bible, those numbers make a difference.  Fortunately, it’s ok if you still can’t pronounce the names.

Key questions remain, however.  Did the genealogies skip any generations? (Maybe) And regardless how long people have been around, the big questions surrounding those “days” in Genesis and the possibility of any gaps of time, still remain. How someone answers these questions, will determine where they land on the age of the earth from a Biblical perspective.  For a pastor, deciding what you believe is not just a question of the science, but a question of how to correctly interpret the Bible as well.

In some ways, this was incredibly freeing for me.  The mere fact a Biblical case could be made for an old-earth, meant I could look at the science without any preconditions at all.  I didn’t feel any pressure to accept an old-earth view just to match up with evolution.  I could listen to the questions about potassium argon dating, or the findings of helium dating, without having to automatically dismiss one view or the other.  The result was I listened to the argument for a young-earth with an open mind, and heaven help me, it made sense.  Scientific sense.

So I changed my mind.  I became one of the crazy young-earthers. And ironically, I did it precisely because I did NOT have to start with a conclusion.  This is not the case for those who are tied down to the idea of evolution, which requires an old age of the earth. It’s not the case for every Christian who is convinced there’s only one possible interpretation of Genesis.  But for many of those who take the Bible literally, and for protestant pastors, they can go either way on the age of the earth.

Noah’s Flood: The Eyeball Test

It is believed the landscape on Mars was formed by large-scale flooding that took place over much of the planet.  The more popular theories suggest much of the flooding was caused by volcanoes, trapped ice, or a meteor strike or some combination of all those things.

Taking a look at Mars now, there are features that appear as flood plains, and canyons which are often believed to have formed through these cataclysmic floods.  It’s hard to imagine now since the planet looks more like the desert planet Tatooine in the movie Star Wars.  Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of research into where the water came from, and where it went. These questions are difficult to answer, and theories abound, but we keep studying because as you can see, Mars shows plenty of evidence of massive flooding.

This is earth.  We call ourselves the water planet and we have many of the same features that Mars has, including massive flood plains and canyons, which many scientists also believe were caused by cataclysmic flooding. The Bible talks about a massive flood in fact.  It’s not hard to imagine now, since the planet is still covered by water to a large extent and looks nothing like Tatooine or Mars.  It is believed Noah’s flood involved volcanoes, trapped water, a meteor or a combination of all three.  Nevertheless, research into Noah’s Flood is generally discouraged because of questions about where the water came from and where it went.  The questions can be somewhat difficult to answer, and theories do abound but as you can see, Earth (the water planet) shows no evidence of massive flooding… *sarcasm*

Pat Robertson Takes Old Earth Stance Again

Pat Robertson… wow, how many sentences on blogs have started with THAT name over the years?… anyway Pat Robertson recently made a few headlines again when he tried to explain his position on the age of the earth.  I don’t want to be too harsh on him, after all, he DID admit he might get lynched for saying this.  But it’s worth mentioning that the Christian world is split on the issue of the age of the earth.

Back in January, a poll by Lifeway Research found that while pastors overwhelmingly rejected evolution, they were split on the age of the earth.  This isn’t new.   In the early 1900’s, a dominant view with many Christians was that there was a “gap” of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and during this gap the dinosaurs existed.  Although that particular view has fallen out of favor somewhat because of our understanding of how the Hebrew language works, there are plenty of Christians who believe the days in Genesis weren’t literally 24 days but more like ages of time, and others who find “gaps” in various ways that account for old earth.

Robertson has long been one of the old earth guys, along the same lines of Christian scientist Hugh Ross whose website, books, and articles have been at the forefront of the Christian old earth viewpoint.  Young earth creationists, with websites such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Truth Foundation are just a few of the big ones that provide the theological and scientific evidence for a young earth.

As crazy as a young earth sounds, most people tend to be shocked at the evidence for it.  After all, we’ve been told our entire lives that the universe is 13.6 billion years old or more. (Depending on how old you are).  6,000-10,000 years just sounds weird to most of us.  Judging by Robertson citing Carbon 14 dating which is never, EVER used in dating the earth, and Pat’s struggle to bring up any actual proof, it sounds like he believes the earth is old because…. well that’s what everyone always says right?

I’m not making fun, we really ARE influenced by our preconceived world view.  It’s what makes things seem reasonable or stupid to us at the very mention of them.  So if you’ve grown up believing dinosaurs lived 60 million years ago, then someone saying they lived 6,000 years ago does sound pretty ridiculous, even if you’ve never personally dated a dinosaur bone.  Young Earth Creationists are likewise perceived as kooks, even though several notable scientists and academics and even some Mensa members are convinced the earth is much younger than advertised.

Typically, due in large part to this whole world view thing we all have, its easy to just assume the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.6 billion.   But is it?  This type of thing is still debated publicly at universities and various forums, so obviously there are two sides the story.  Speaking for myself, it wasn’t until I looked at and studied the science of it, that I became a young earth guy.

Listening to Pat, it sounds like a world view thing because he quoted no real evidence.  He just mentioned a dating method that isn’t used for the earth at all, and the fact that dinosaur skeletons have been found.  That’s like saying the earth is old because the sky is blue.  Of course it looks blue, but why do you think it’s been around for 4.6 billion?  One doesn’t follow the other.  No matter if you think the earth is old or young, dinosaurs still existed.

Since the Bible doesn’t come out and give a number, Christians are generally all over the map on the age of the earth.  The only thing I’d really criticize Pat Robertson for is his dismissive tone in this video toward those who believe the earth is young.  They’ll lose their children he says.  Or maybe their children will become accomplished scientists who believe in a young earth?  Because someone should tell Pat, there are several of those people running around.  Maybe Pat can let Bill Nye guest host with him?

What Does the Universe Tell us About God?

Intelligent Design is a term used to describe a certain point of view of many scientists and academics who study the universe or some part of it.  Plus, it’s the point of view of many others who arrive at the same conclusion because of their religious beliefs.  Basically, it’s the idea that there are clues in our universe indicating that an intelligence is behind it all.

For you that may be God, and of course it is for me too. Without question.  Others like to go with the idea that aliens did it, and aliens put us here.  Intelligent aliens are more palatable to some than God.  As silly as that may sound to you or me, (understatement) don’t think for a second people aren’t willing to go there.  A few prominent people have suggested it, and one major movie was built around it.

-all because the evidence that points to an Intelligence behind the Design is substantial enough to convince a lot of people.

But let’s put God in the picture for a second, and take it a step beyond.  Besides just the remarkable facts of how our universe is constructed and how it came to be… what if we asked why?

In the Bible, Romans 1:20 said this about God and His creation:

“For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.”

Usually, we quote this verse and say the creation proves God exists, but really there’s more than that isn’t there?  It says that through His creation we can discover God’s “invisible attributes” and His “eternal power and divine nature.”

Which leaves us with the conclusion that not only would the creation argue for the existence of God, (and this is precisely what many believe Intelligent Design demonstrates) but the creation would give us clues ABOUT God.

So what are they?

Did God Lie To Us?

There are two groups of Christians who believe that the universe was created by God.  The group that believes He did it in 6 actual days just a few thousand years ago, and the group that believes God did it billions of years ago.  Both groups often claim to interpret the Bible straightforwardly because the Bible never specifically says how old the earth is.  Thus it becomes a question over who has the proper interpretation.  An argument usually ensues over the Hebrew word “yom,” possible gaps of time, how long the seventh day actually lasted, and more.

I am currently a believer in a young earth.  Pretty crazy for a pastor I know, but it’s fun being radical and besides that, I just happen to think those models and theories work pretty well.  Yet if I (or you for that matter) want to hold to a young earth position, we’re going to be faced with a few thought-provoking theological questions.  Like this one:  Did God Lie to Us?

Age of the Earth, Can the Bible be serious?

The Bible actually never says how old the earth is, but people do infer the age by adding up the genealogy lists which give the ages of various persons in a family line. There are several places in Genesis where it lists who was the father of who, and how long they lived, so adding those up, people arrive at an age of about 6,000 years.

It has been argued that traditionally Jewish genealogies have sometimes left people out and skipped a few generations here and there when making a list.

If that happened with the lists in the Bible, then one would expect the age of the earth to actually be a bit more, but still nowhere near the 4 1/2 billion mark that the scientifically establishment usually says. (I heard a rumor they are fixing to increase it again, this time to 6 billion)

Many Bible believers, and even some (not all) Hebrew scholars have argued that the word we translated “day” in the Genesis story referred to a time period that was longer than 24 hours. (The word can mean a portion of a day, basically a full day, or an indefinite period of time depending on how it’s used.) Here, it’s used in a way that is most easily just translated “day,” as in… a regular ol’ day.

Other’s have argued there’s a gap of time in there BEFORE the seven days of creation even start. Historically, they’ve argued that this is the time the dinosaurs lived, but the Hebrew language in those verses doesn’t really allow any gap between verse 1 and 2 for the dinosaurs to live in. Some argue that the earth was covered by water for eons, in between Genesis 1:2 and 3, but you can’t fit land dinosaurs in there.

So the plain meaning of the Bible, taking a day to be basically a regular day, is that the earth is a little more than 6,000 years old. Since there was evidently no sun until day four, I think you have give a little room for God to say what is meant by “evening and morning” on those days. I think Augustine said those were “God-defined days, not solar-defined days” and I agree. Was it 24 hours, or 19 hours, or 456 hours…??

Where Did All the Water Come From… Or Go? -Noah’s Flood Part III

The Bible says that “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” -Genesis 7:11-12 (ASV). So according to the Bible, it came from two places: From underneath the oceans and raining down from the sky for 40 days and 40 nights.

And if it came from underneath the oceans, was that in the form of water, or was it in the form of steam as volcanic eruptions took place along the earth’s crust sending huge plums of steam into the atmosphere where it cooled and then fell back to earth as rain?

It would be quite the cataclysm would it not?

Noah’s Flood, Examining Some Questions, Part II

In his book, “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth,” David Snoke claims that the story of Noah in the Bible refers to a localized flood, and not a global one. I enjoyed his book, but I disagree with Snoke on this. So just for fun, I thought I’d answer some of his objections to a world-wide flood.

In part one I dealt with gathering the animals, fitting them into the ark, and feeding the carnivorous ones! Here, I will deal with whether or not 8 people can feed that many creatures every day, the ventilation of the ark, and animals with special needs. Let’s start with whether or not it’s even possible for 8 people to practice their animal husbandry skills with that many critters…

Noah’s Flood, Examining Some Questions, Part I

Recently, I’ve been reading the book “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by David Snoke. In it, he challenges the traditional notions of young earth creationism from both a Biblical and scientific viewpoint. When I’m finished, I’ll give you a full report on it, but for now, I wanted to focus on what he said about Noah’s flood.

Snoke claims that to believe Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth, one has to accept that 15 separate miracles took place, and that God not only flooded the earth, but erased the evidence. He claims the flood was local AND that it killed all of humanity BUT did not cover the globe -not without miracles at least.

Now, it is true that the Biblical account of Noah’s flood contains some miracles. Of course it does, we’re talking God here. When the children of Israel were wandering around the desert, God performed all sorts of miracles, including miracles of preservation: Manna appeared on the ground every morning, their clothes didn’t wear out, water came out of rocks, and more. To say that God had Noah build an ark, and then flooded the earth without also preserving and protecting Noah, would be to not pay attention to God, and not read the story very closely. There ARE miracles in it.

But are these miracles bordering on the unreasonable?

Blind Salamanders and Blind People

This article by Christopher Hitchins made a good point in my opinion. The sort of point that makes you go, hmmmm…. and start researching. Of course, most people won’t actually look any closer, they’ll jump straight to the conclusion just like the article did. Let me warn you it’s not an argument for creation, but instead an argument that purports to conclusively prove evolution… in reverse. Thus proving the principle of evolution in the first place according to those who want to see that way.

What the article truly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is the blindness of the writer.