Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Here is James White making light of a debate between two Islamic college professors over whether or not the earth is flat, one of them making his arguments for its non-sphericity on the basis of verses from the Qur'an.

He's trying to make a valid point about the question of corrective mechanisms within the Islamic faith regarding interpretations of the Qur'an, and how under strict Sharia law a healthy process of correcting faulty interpretations that were held by early generations of Muslims probably would not exist.

However, it is quite funny, as I would chalk up his young-earth creationism to the same kind of misinterpretation of biblical passages, namely that a proper evangelical interpretation of the creation accounts of the Old and New Testaments requires us to hold to the "calendar-day" view and thus assert that the earth and the universe in its entirety must be on the order of several thousands of years old.

What's really funny here though is that his basic argument is that science shows us the earth is round, and as such either the Qur'an has been misinterpreted, or the Qur'an does teach this and it is just plain wrong. He says that many "Muslims are fully aware of the modern world" and would only laugh at the idea that the earth is flat. However, try to make the same argument regarding the age of the earth, and most young-earth creationists will immediately accuse you of putting "man's fallible methods" over the Word of God (completely forgetting the fact that there are such things as "man's fallible interpretations" of the Bible). One cannot have it both ways where one says in one place that a faulty interpretation is illuminated by a well-established scientific result and in another place you claim the opposite (though out of necessity it must also be shown that a variant interpretation is possible and proper on the basis of the text itself).

It's also quite ironic that he makes a reference to GPS systems as being part of the proof of the sphericity of the earth, because those same systems depend on the correctness of general relativity to work, and it is general relativity that lays the foundation for Big Bang cosmology, which is extremely well-supported by the evidence of science, including the measured expansion of the universe, measurements of the cosmic microwave background both in the nearby and far-away cosmos, and the abundances of the light elements, to name a few.

The physicist Murray Gell-Mann once said that it was "easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth." While this was doubtlessly hyperbolic, I would chalk up both beliefs to the same kind of problem. Thankfully the Word of God teaches neither of these things.

Bad Associations

To adopt an over-used phraseology from the election, the AiG Creation Museum pals around with unrepentant Jew-haters.

If you want an example click here (warning, you may be very offended, and in fact, you should).

DISCLAIMER: When I say "Jew-haters" I'm really only referring to Herman Otten, not to anyone else in the picture.

Death before the Fall

Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason nails it on this last week's program regarding the question of what kinds of "death" were in operation before the Fall and what it all means theologically. You can hear it on this week's podcast.

More wacky (and borderline heretical) YEC views

My ears perked up today as I listened to listener emails read and answered on "Issues, Etc." One woman emailed in to claim that she had heard that the Institute for Creation Research (a prominent young-earth organization) had said that the Virgin Mary served as the place where Christ was conceived but did not provide her genetic material for him to be conceived from.

Ummmm.... huh?

I couldn't believe that this was for real. A little bit of searching revealed it was true, because I found this article. Here are some excerpts of the lunacy written by Henry Morris.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the incarnation is that a God who is absolute holiness could reside in a body of human flesh. Is it not true that "they that are in the flesh cannot please God?" (Romans 8:8). Our human bodies have been formed through many generations of genetic inheritance from Adam himself, and "in Adam all die" (I Corinthians 15:22).

The paradox is partially resolved, of course, when it is realized that Jesus Christ came in a body which was not of sinful flesh. His body was truly "in the flesh," but only "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3).

 So far, so good, I suppose, but I wouldn't make too much of the distinction between "in the flesh" and "in the likeness of sinful flesh" as Morris does. I think that Paul's point is merely that the flesh of humans is sinful, though Jesus is the exception to this. But beyond that, Jesus took our sin upon us on the cross, so in this limited sense it is true that the flesh of Jesus was "sinful." However, Morris quickly goes overboard:

But even this doesn't resolve the dilemma completely, for how could His body be of flesh (carbon, hydrogen, amino acids, proteins, etc.), received by the normal process of reproduction of the flesh of his parents, without also receiving their genetic inheritance, which is exactly what makes it sinful flesh? "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble … Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4).

Sinful flesh comes about by genetic inheritance? It's, like, in the DNA like a gene? I don't want to go into this too much, but it seems clear to me the Bible doesn't teach this. Whatever "born in sin" and "conceived in sin" means, I doubt it has anything to do with meiosis. However, building on this argument, he carries it through to a very odd conclusion, even for an odd argument:

Not only is there the problem of inherent sin, but also of inherent physical defects. Over many generations, the human population has experienced great numbers of genetic mutations, and these defective physical factors have been incorporated into the common genetic pool, affecting in some degree every infant ever born. Yet the Lamb of God, to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be "without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19). The very purpose of the incarnation was that God could become the Saviour of men as well as their Creator, but this required that in His humanity He must be "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26), and this would have been absolutely impossible by the normal reproductive process.

Morris has completely missed the point. In the Old Testament ritual, "without blemish and without spot" may have been from a physical perspective, but it was only because it was a type and a shadow of the one who would be without blemish or spot of sin. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not Jesus had or didn't have physical defects. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus got tired, hungry, frustrated, worried, etc.. For Jesus to fully take part in our humanity it seems essential that he was not immune to the effects of genetic deterioration that piled up over the centuries either. I believe that Jesus was in pain when he stubbed his toe, that he bled if he scraped his knee, and that he got sick and ran fevers. Why should we deny the possibility that he also might have inherited physical defects? He was fully a part of our humanity, with only one Biblically-stated exception: he was without sin. Morris has completely re-defined and misunderstood the humanity of Jesus.

The solution could only be through a mighty miracle! He could not be conceived in the same manner as other men, for this would inevitably give him both a sin-nature and a physically defective body, and each would disqualify Him as a fit Redeemer. And yet He must truly become human. "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17).

Morris has taken away with one hand what he gave with the other. How in the world is Jesus truly human if he does not have a human conception? I'm not denying the conception by the Holy Spirit  and the virgin birth. I'm simply stating that Jesus' true humanity requires he receive genetic material from Mary. Otherwise all of the fuss that the Gospel writers make with the geneaologies showing the lineage of Jesus is pointless.

On second thought, however, one realizes that it was not the virgin birth which was significant, except as a testimony of the necessity of the real miracle, the supernatural conception. The birth of Christ was natural and normal in every way, including the full period of human gestation in the womb of Mary. In all points, He was made like His brethren, experiencing every aspect of human life from conception through birth and growth to death. He was true man in every detail, except for sin and its physical effects.

The miracle was not His birth, but His conception. And here we still face a mystery. Conception normally is the result of the union of two germ cells, the egg from the mother and the seed from the father, each carrying half the inheritance and thus each, of course, sharing equally in the transmission of the sin-nature as well as all other aspects of the human nature.

Morris has completely contradicted himself. It is simply not possible for him to affirm that Jesus was made like his brethren in "all points" if he did not receive genetic material from Mary. Jesus needs to have a human conception, albeit a miraculous one, for him to have true humanity. The early church fathers would not have tolerated such nonsense had they had access to the science we have today.

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.

 So Morris claims that Jesus has no physical continuity whatsoever with his mother, or anyone before him for that matter. He claims that the human flesh of Jesus was a special creation. That's right, creation ex nihilo. He claims that this is necessary because if he did he would of necessity be tainted with sinful flesh. Where on earth did he get all of this? Certainly not from the Bible.

Where did all of this nonsense come from? It comes from the assumptions that he reads into Scripture and binds himself to. YECs have a view of the Fall that ends up being a soft Gnosticism, irrevocably tying whatever comes from physical processes to sin, including conception. Morris assumes that for something to be "good" and without sin it must come from a special creation, brand spanking new out of nothing. Rather, it seems that the true message of the Bible is that God is taking the good creation which has been tainted by sin and is making it without sin through the work of Jesus. Jesus was made of the stuff of this creation, yet was without sin, by the miraculous power of God. And through the perfect, sinless life of Jesus, his sacrifice on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead God is making "all things new." From our own sinful lives and flesh to the creation itself, God is making all things good once again. Paul says:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:18-23, ESV)

Jesus, true God, Creator of the cosmos, is also true man, conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. I have no idea how this happened, or where the "rest" of the material came from. That's why it's a miracle. But when we deny Jesus a real conception with real physical continuity with his mother, we implicitly deny his humanity.

Luckily, Todd Wilken, the host of "Issues, Etc." affirmed this. However, he then derisively questioned if ICR was one of those "old-earth, quasi-theistic" organizations. I'm sorry, but that's patently insulting. I wish Todd would seriously interact with old-earth creationism. However, that's another topic for another time.

Jesus a Young-Earther?

Todd Wilken said on Issues, Etc. today that Jesus and Paul thought that believing in a six-day creation was very important.

My ears perked up. I wanted to hear the Scripture citations for that!

Then he talked about Jesus referencing the "in the beginning God made them male and female" in his teaching on marriage (e.g., Matthew 19) and Paul's teaching that Christ is the Second Adam (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15).

All well and good. It demonstrates that Jesus and Paul took the stories about the origin of humanity seriously. But what does that have to do with a literal 24-hour day creation week? Every time Todd has someone on to talk about creation and evolution the discussion revolves around young-earth creationism vs. theistic evolution. Most (but not all) theistic evolutionists believe that the Genesis stories are myths, and this is what he was really arguing against.

I know Todd has heard about old-earth creationism, but for some reason (that I am not aware of) he doesn't seem to want to engage with it.

Academic Freedom?

Lots of Christians are saying that public schools need to allow for "academic freedom" and have criticism of evolution. Some states are attempting to pass laws to this effect. I'm not quite sure how a legislature can enforce "academic freedom," and I find it funny that a whole bunch of Republicans have suddenly decided that government intervening in the school system is a good thing. But that's another topic.

I agree that we should be allowed to question Darwinism, but these laws that are being passed are too sloppy and allow all sorts of ideas that are not science a potential foot in the door of the science classroom.

Here's a question: I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Darwinism but does believe that the earth and universe are billions of years old. What about those Christian institutions that only allow people who believe in a young earth to teach? Shouldn't I have the academic freedom to question the young-earth paradigm? (Pointing out the fact that these are private insitutions misses the point.)

Who's against the Big Bang? And why?

You can get some hints here.

From this so-called "cosmology statement":

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

Unfortunately, they don't bother pointing out that several independent lines of evidence lead to the conclusions about dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. The underlying motivation of many of the signers is subtle, but it pokes out momentarily:

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.

Oh yes, that troublesome beginning of the universe that comes with that big bang. Philosophy and theology (or lack thereof) drive most objections to the big bang. However, objections to the big bang often make odd bedfellows. Take, for example, this set of names of signers to the statement:

Harlton Arp
Hermann Bondi
Thomas Gold
Eric J. Lerner
Jayant Narlikar
Anthony L. Peratt

Those are just some of the physicists and astronomers' names I recognize. They all don't like the big bang because they have philosophical objections to the universe having a beginning (especially Lerner). However, there are another couple of names on this list that I find interesting:

John Hartnett
Charles Creager Jr.

These guys are both young-earth creationists. The big bang bothers both atheists who want an eternal universe and young-earth Christians who want a young one.

And of course both groups are claiming that they don't get a fair hearing and that the research is skewed. This isn't really fair either. Some of the astronomers on that list were prominent scientists who made valuable and important contributions to the field, and without their poking and prodding at cosmology we would have never refined the big bang theory. And, of course, young-earth creationists have no shortage of money and attention.

Anyone is free to put forward any model of the universe they choose to be subjected to testing. The facts, however, seem to again and again point in the direction of a big bang universe.

Young-Earth Bible

A friend of mine who works in a Barnes & Noble texted me a picture of this Bible today:



Good grief. First, they pick an outdated translation (though this comes as no surprise). Second, note that it is not the doctrine of creation that is emphasized here, but creationism that is.

Creation is a worthy doctrine to focus on, since the story of the Bible is the story of the God of creation, and how he elects, covenants with, and redeems the people of his creation. In the end, he will also redeem creation itself (Romans 8:18-25). However, creationism is a different thing, and young-earth creationism (YEC) in particular. YEC ties the creation story in the Old Testament to a particular interpretation and a wholesale denial of essentially everything discovered by physics, astronomy, and geology.

More importantly, however, most YEC proponents usually end up de-emphasizing the resurrection and the new creation at the expense of their obsession with the age of the earth. Even more importantly, the story of the Bible is ultimately about Jesus Christ, and how in him all of the themes of the Bible are tied together.

Themed Bibles stink. I have enough trouble with my own presuppositions, the last thing I need is to lay down another layer of them on top of them. I would hope that my ministry would never choose to publish a Bible with our own opinions stuck in there. Luckily, I doubt it.

By the way, "New Defenders"? What's so "new" about young-earth creationism?